Playing a game today, was told my stormraven couldn't fire its assault cannon at a target right in front of it, because the assault cannon can't depress far enough to fire the gun.

Of course, if I had modeled stupid stormraven flying upside down, It seemed reasonable to me to assume that as a stormraven is flying it could bank/swerve to position to fire the guns... but I'm not sure what the rules are on this.



Do stormraven dorsal turret guns have an 18-20" "dead zone" around them that they cannot hit?

(kinda meant to post this to YMDC... sorry)

lol, there is no 3d in shooting, just an arc, you got boned. Think of flying things do they always have the same pitch and yaw or are they fluid?

what seems stupidest about this is that if I have an 18" dead zone on assault cannons, the damn gun only has a range of 24"... do I have a 6" sweet spot I need to hit or else the gun is useless? BAH.

There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

there is no up down in terms of shooting. Just check the standard fire arc and you can shoot.

Yeah, THe pilot would just point down farther.

You need to be able to draw a line from the gun barrel to your target, with a depression/elevation of 45 degrees.

If you can't, without your hull getting in the way of the shot, you can't shoot the target. LOS is drawn from the gun, along the barrel.

If, for example, a warbuggy was directly underneath your SR, and you couldn't draw a line along the gun and still see it, you wouldn't have LOS, and so couldn't shoot it.

The Dorsal gun is more intended for flyer on flyer action, i think, as it will always be able to draw a bead.

PG 72 rulebook - Vehicles and line of sight

Ascalam wrote:You need to be able to draw a line from the gun barrel to your target, with a depression/elevation of 45 degrees.

If you can't, without your hull getting in the way of the shot, you can't shoot the target. LOS is drawn from the gun, along the barrel.

If, for example, a warbuggy was directly underneath your SR, and you couldn't draw a line along the gun and still see it, you wouldn't have LOS, and so couldn't shoot it.

The Dorsal gun is more intended for flyer on flyer action, i think, as it will always be able to draw a bead.

PG 72 rulebook - Vehicles and line of sight

Adjust flying base to angle the Storm raven 45 degrees toward the ground.
Done.

-Matt

It's a pain, but yes the Stormraven turret has a 45 degree angle for up and down, there is no exception for flyers.

Oh and if your flying base is 'broken' I have a spare one you can use

Well then. Is there any reason I have to use the GW flying base with my stormraven? Can I mount it on a lower base, so that its guns can actually see things they are supposed to shoot?

Horst wrote:Well then. Is there any reason I have to use the GW flying base with my stormraven? Can I mount it on a lower base, so that its guns can actually see things they are supposed to shoot?

Of course not. You must use the base the model came with.

I don't think he has to use the flying stand though. Plenty of people with smaller flying bases convert them into trees and the like, so he could feasibly lower the Stormraven a little. There are no rules as far as I know governing the use of flying stands.

1- is the stem part of the base?
2-is installing a swivel allowed?
3- is assembling the model counter to the instructions legal?
3a-if not, what are conversions?

Personally, I think that anyone fishing for that sort of way out is pretty lame, and deserves stupid fixes to a stupid problem.

tgf wrote:there is no up down in terms of shooting. Just check the standard fire arc and you can shoot.

100% incorrect, as has been pointed out. You get 45 degrees of vertical traverse

Your opponent sounds like a dick. The fact that this has never come up before is telling.

Mount your gun under the nose. Like any sensible engineer would do for a ground-attack aircraft.

Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

Yeah you got hosed. Its stuff like this that causes MfA . Model your storm raven pointing down at an angle, and it will stop this BS from happening.

The_Solitaire wrote:Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

I agree. However, the problem isn't shooting things directly below it. It can't hit things even 12" in front of it.

With that 45 degree transverse, it can't hit anything less than 18" away from it or so... with a gun that has a max range of 24".

spiralingcadaver wrote:1- is the stem part of the base?
2-is installing a swivel allowed?
3- is assembling the model counter to the instructions legal?
3a-if not, what are conversions?

Personally, I think that anyone fishing for that sort of way out is pretty lame, and deserves stupid fixes to a stupid problem.

1. Yes.
2. If you modify the stem, it shouldn't impact gameplay, Being able to adjust the angle of the model isn't allowed in rules, especially when we have 45degree rules for shooting.
3. Yes.
3a. Conversions are technically illegal, but when they don't impact gameplay, people don't complain. If you make a conversion to explicitly gain an advantage in gameplay it is modeling for advantage and people are not cool with that usually.

Horst wrote:

The_Solitaire wrote:Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

I agree. However, the problem isn't shooting things directly below it. It can't hit things even 12" in front of it.

With that 45 degree transverse, it can't hit anything less than 18" away from it or so... with a gun that has a max range of 24".

You could always not use the vehicle in your army...

That's the way GW designed the rules and the way GW designed the unit, the fact that it can't be used exactly how you expect it to work is hardly grounds for ignoring these designs.

All Flyers suffer from this issue, and all Flyers get plenty of advantages to offset it.

Yes, it has a 45 degee arc downward. Most people are pretty flexible about that, though, IME. If it's close they'll usually give it to you.

nkelsch wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:1- is the stem part of the base?
2-is installing a swivel allowed?
3- is assembling the model counter to the instructions legal?
3a-if not, what are conversions?

Personally, I think that anyone fishing for that sort of way out is pretty lame, and deserves stupid fixes to a stupid problem.

1. Yes.
2. If you modify the stem, it shouldn't impact gameplay, Being able to adjust the angle of the model isn't allowed in rules, especially when we have 45degree rules for shooting.
3. Yes.
3a. Conversions are technically illegal, but when they don't impact gameplay, people don't complain. If you make a conversion to explicitly gain an advantage in gameplay it is modeling for advantage and people are not cool with that usually.

Yes.

Sigvatr wrote:

Horst wrote:Well then. Is there any reason I have to use the GW flying base with my stormraven? Can I mount it on a lower base, so that its guns can actually see things they are supposed to shoot?

Of course not. You must use the base the model came with.

No you don't:

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the bases that they are supplied with.... You should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish" - Pg.3

Iranna.

Iranna wrote:No you don't:

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the bases that they are supplied with.... You should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish" - Pg.3

Iranna.

Oh man, that's a really classy misleading abbreviation of the rule...

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometime, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as a guidance."

That's hardly telling you to go nuts with changing bases whenever you want.

So you're genuinely suggesting that the Storm Raven's AC can't shoot at anything 18" or less?

Drunkspleen wrote:

Oh man, that's a really classy misleading abbreviation of the rule...

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometime, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as a guidance."

That's hardly telling you to go nuts with changing bases whenever you want.

The point still stands, Horst can mount his SRaven on a more appropriate base is he feels so necessary.

Iranna.

If the hull gets in the way, then you cannot shoot your target. It sucks for people with SR, but you now have an assault cannon with skyfire, so it balances out.

-cgmckenzie

Testify wrote:So you're genuinely suggesting that the Storm Raven's AC can't shoot at anything 18" or less?

Yep, and a Land Raiders left sponson can't shoot at anything too close on the right side of it either, why is it suddenly unfair when it's a vertical issue rather than a horizontal one?

Iranna wrote:The point still stands, Horst can mount his SRaven on a more appropriate base is he feels so necessary.

Iranna.

Using models of a similar type (such as flyers, all of which use the large oval base and a large flying stem) as guidance, yep sure, in which case you may as well just use the base it came with, because all you are allowed to do is scratchbuild a new version of it.

Iranna wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Oh man, that's a really classy misleading abbreviation of the rule...

"The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometime, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as a guidance."

That's hardly telling you to go nuts with changing bases whenever you want.

The point still stands, Horst can mount his SRaven on a more appropriate base is he feels so necessary.

Iranna.

No it doesn't. You may only do so for unique or old models which have no base. And then they say use the base of the most comparable model... which is going to be a flying base.

Your previous selective quote shows wilful misunderstanding.

Modeling so stormravens can change their axis mid-game is not allowed in the rules and is modeling for advantage.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Testify wrote:So you're genuinely suggesting that the Storm Raven's AC can't shoot at anything 18" or less?

Yep, and a Land Raiders left sponson can't shoot at anything too close on the right side of it either, why is it suddenly unfair when it's a vertical issue rather than a horizontal one?

Its unfair in this case because the storm raven only has a tiny window where it can actually shoot its gun. The land raider, on the other hand, can fire at everything within a 180 degree arc of its gun. see the difference?

I think your opponent was a dick. I would understand if the Stormraven was hovering right on top of him, but not anyway else.
Our FLGS uses a rule which states that flyers can shoot as long as the edge of their base is further than 3'' from the unit it is firing at.

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:Our FLGS uses a rule which states that flyers can shoot as long as the edge of their base is further than 3'' from the unit it is firing at.

That makes sense and all, but unfortunately, that's not the rule. If you cannot draw LOS from the gun to the target along the described field of fire, you cannot shoot.

-cgmckenzie

Horst wrote:Its unfair in this case because the storm raven only has a tiny window where it can actually shoot its gun. The land raider, on the other hand, can fire at everything within a 180 degree arc of its gun. see the difference?

No, I'm afraid I don't.

In both cases the nature of the model is that it is restricted in that way, it's not like someone is suddenly heaping this limitation on you (well they are kind of, but only because of your failure to observe it sooner), it has been there since the storm raven came into existence.

So the Assault Cannon isn't good for shooting at ground targets, okay, so use it to do something else then, rather than complain it's unfair that you aren't allowed to shoot through the hull of your vehicle, just like every other vehicle in the game isn't allowed to.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Horst wrote:

The_Solitaire wrote:Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

I agree. However, the problem isn't shooting things directly below it. It can't hit things even 12" in front of it.

With that 45 degree transverse, it can't hit anything less than 18" away from it or so... with a gun that has a max range of 24".

You could always not use the vehicle in your army...

That's the way GW designed the rules and the way GW designed the unit, the fact that it can't be used exactly how you expect it to work is hardly grounds for ignoring these designs.

All Flyers suffer from this issue, and all Flyers get plenty of advantages to offset it.

Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

Akirakill wrote:Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

I meant they all have a somewhat limited vertical arc, it just happens to be worse in some cases.

Akirakill wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Horst wrote:

The_Solitaire wrote:Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

I agree. However, the problem isn't shooting things directly below it. It can't hit things even 12" in front of it.

With that 45 degree transverse, it can't hit anything less than 18" away from it or so... with a gun that has a max range of 24".

You could always not use the vehicle in your army...

That's the way GW designed the rules and the way GW designed the unit, the fact that it can't be used exactly how you expect it to work is hardly grounds for ignoring these designs.

All Flyers suffer from this issue, and all Flyers get plenty of advantages to offset it.

Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

Except they were stupid enough to mount guns on the bottom of almost ALL of their vehicles, meaning any little piece of terrain will block LOS. They were also too stupid to make the turret on the Anni barge actually rotate. Most models have issues in one form or another. Deal with it and move on.

So... I can tilt the base of my stormraven then so the gun can hit the ground, right?

I don't see any rule that says I have to use the base provided, unmodified.

Once you modify that base, it is no longer the same base as provided. The purpose of the base as provided is to 'balance' the game in one way or another, restricting x, enabling y. By changing that, you are modeling for advantage.

Things like adding scenery to the base and other such things really doesn't matter because it is purely aesthetic. Changing the angle of flight changes arcs of fire and LOS, potentially to and from the stormraven.

Play the model the way it is designed. It already is immune to melta, can move crazy fast across the board while still transporting a squad and a dreadnought, and has a solid arsenal to boot. Do you really need it to be stronger than that?

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Once you modify that base, it is no longer the same base as provided. The purpose of the base as provided is to 'balance' the game in one way or another, restricting x, enabling y. By changing that, you are modeling for advantage.

Things like adding scenery to the base and other such things really doesn't matter because it is purely aesthetic. Changing the angle of flight changes arcs of fire and LOS, potentially to and from the stormraven.

Play the model the way it is designed. It already is immune to melta, can move crazy fast across the board while still transporting a squad and a dreadnought, and has a solid arsenal to boot. Do you really need it to be stronger than that?

-cgmckenzie

lol, has a "solid arsenal"... you mean the one where one of its two primary weapons has a blind spot that prevents its use in 75% of its range? Yea, real solid.

Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one. I don't feel like using the normal base. No problem then, right?

Horst wrote:
Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one.

For models without bases...

Show me a rule that allows you to modify the model for personal advantage? permissive ruleset and all.

This is the same argument about telescoping bases to allow skimmers to be high one moment for unobstructed LOS and low later for cover. Nothing says you can.

Well... if I can't modify the base, can I take the turret off, and mount the assault cannons underneath the wings instead?

Horst wrote:lol, has a "solid arsenal"... you mean the one where one of its two primary weapons has a blind spot that prevents its use in 75% of its range? Yea, real solid.

Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one. I don't feel like using the normal base. No problem then, right?

It is, after all, your plastic armymen. You may do to them anything you wish, as it is just as much your hobby as it is mine or anybodies.

But, do take a hard look at why you are changing your model. Intent is everything here. If you are changing it to make the model more exciting and dramatic, more power to you. Can't wait to see the final result. But, if your reasons for modification are all about how the model interacts within the game... That, in my opinion, is in bad form. And, while not explicitly forbid within the rules is, quite certainly, looked down upon within the community.

Pg 3 6th Edition BGB said
"Models and Base Sizes: The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases(which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."

Let's break it down

The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with.

The rules are written for the stormraven to be on the base it is supplied with. Changing the pitch/yaw of the base mount makes the base not the one the rules were written for.

Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases

Old terminators and old ghazzy on 25mm rounds, ancient dreads on 50mm squares, gorka morka boys on kidney bean shaped bases. These are unusually modelled bases when compared to the current versions of each model now.

In these cases(which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

If you want to rebase the above models, use the base sizes from today. This is not forcing you to rebase your really old terminators, but if you wish to, please use the current base sizes. It is not an excuse for you to make stupid bases for your stormravens because you don't want to use the normal base. Scenic bases are one thing, purposefully adjusting the LOS of the model is wrong, however.

Your stormravens are not the majestic killing machines you want them to be against ground targets. This solid arsenal can be used against fliers with impunity because other fliers have skyfire. This made the storm raven better this edition.

-cgmckenzie

You're asking a model to do something it isn't meant to. With the new edition out and how long they've been planning it, it becomes obvious that this weapon mount was designed to be used against other fliers. If yo had asked this in 5th ed, before we knew about the flier rules, I would've said yeah, change it, that's a dumb design point. But now you're just trying to get an unintended advantage through modelling. Leave your anti-aircraft weapon in its anti-aircraft position. It's not meant for ground targets.

feth it, I'm just going to replace it with a lascannon. At least then I'll be able to use the machine spirit to hit a viable ground target, rather than have the turret be useless against everything besides air targets.

I think the spirit and actual wording of the rules clearly allows a 45 degree up and down arc, which would therefore restrict the 'raven's assault cannon to engaging targets to its front that lie over 11" from the muzzle (the muzzle lies about 8" from the ground but the hull of the raven would obstruct a precise 45 degree shot. While the hull and mounting do not allow a depression of 45 degrees, neither do many hull mounted weapons allow raising by 45 degrees (sponson lascannon, say). it seems unreasonable to me to restrict either due to the limitations of the model, just as it is unreasonable to allow dreadnoughts, say, to fire vertically just because their guns may be pointed so.

Direct quote from the rules:

'On some models it will be literally impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the modelis assembled [my emphasis] or because the gun has been glued in place. 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 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannon physically do that [my emphasis].'

It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

No one is saying that it can't. They are saying that when doing that depression the normal rules for LOS must still be applied. If drawing a 45 degree angle to a target takes the LOS from the barrel of the gun through the vehicles own hull then it cannot make that shot.

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:I think your opponent was a dick. I would understand if the Stormraven was hovering right on top of him, but not anyway else.
Our FLGS uses a rule which states that flyers can shoot as long as the edge of their base is further than 3'' from the unit it is firing at.

Because flyers are so underpowered, they really needed that boost....

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

We all agree it can do that... But that makes a blind spot of models which are within about 6-7" on the ground.

We are talking about people who want to shoot almost directly down at 90 degrees. And if they can change the axis of the storm raven 45 degrees and then that gives the guns an additional 45 degrees.

It is free to depress it all it likes up to 45 degrees, but it can't shoot through its own hull. The Raven doesn't tilt 45 degrees to fire it, the turret can depress/elevate the gun 45 degrees.

The top turret on the SR is intended to shoot at flyers IMO, not ground targets. That's why it's on top. The Ork burna-bomma has a similar turret, and i wouldn't claim that it gets to shoot rightn through the hull to shoot targets below it despite it being more likely than a SM vaping holes in his own vehicle.

The blitzabomma a rear facing big shoota that can't fire at the same target as the front guns. Should it be allowed to? No, because it's not mounted in a way that allows it.

It's like saying that the belly turret the Memphis Belle should be allowed to shoot at a plane directly above the cockpit. It can't, because there is a plane in the way... theirs.

The SR has ample other guns/missiles it can use on ground targets.

coredump wrote:Because flyers are so underpowered, they really needed that boost....

It is better than not being able to shoot models 16'' away. Flyers are gunfodder on the first turn anyway.

nkelsch wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

We all agree it can do that... But that makes a blind spot of models which are within about 6-7" on the ground.

We are talking about people who want to shoot almost directly down at 90 degrees. And if they can change the axis of the storm raven 45 degrees and then that gives the guns an additional 45 degrees.

no, the blind spot is ~14" (just measured it).

This means my assault cannons have a range of 14"-24"

I don't see why I can't just model the raven angled downwards a bit. Looks like you could easily reduce that minimum range to ~6", without any serious modification.

No one is saying that it can't. They are saying that when doing that depression the normal rules for LOS must still be applied. If drawing a 45 degree angle to a target takes the LOS from the barrel of the gun through the vehicles own hull then it cannot make that shot

The OP was saying he had been prevented from firing by his opponent claiming he had to use the 'true' depression.

If you read what I was saying, it was that the rules specifically countered that.

And also that I had allowed for the hull getting in the way. hence it's actually around 11" from the muzle to the ground that's permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

no, the blind spot is ~14"

I've just measured it myself again from the muzzle.

It's about 12" (actually a bit less)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or about 9" from the front of the base.

(edited copying error, sorry)

So with all this 45 degree angle stuff who's going to start taking a protractor to their games along with templates and dice?

So with all this 45 degree angle stuff who's going to start taking a protractor to their games along with templates and dice?

Well you could just use a quick Pythagororas instead.

But you're right. in any normal situation, people are unlikely to quibble what the precise area of the blind spot is. But lots of vehicles will use the 45 degree rule from time to time so maybe you should take your protractor just in case.

Permissive rule set?
Ok.
You get a 45 degree swivel on vehicle weapons.
If you're claiming you can aim upwards 45 degrees, then you cannot draw line of sight to anything shorter than the barrel.

You couldn't fire a battle cannon at an assault marine.
You couldn't fire a sponson at a pathfinder.

If 45 degree vertical is vertical axis, then it is split between up and down; just like the 45 degree horizontal is split between 22.5 degrees right and left, as shown in the diagram.

While this would mean that the assault cannons could pretty much never fire, it would also mean that a flier cannot be hit at all if you're within about a foot and a half of the shooter.


I'm personally looking forward to having my assault marines immune to battle cannons, I guess that's a fair trade off for losing 4 S6 shots

-Matt

The issue at hand here, but wasn't explained at all clearly until page two, is that the assault cannon is on TOP of the SR and therefore would have to shoot through itself.
Look at this picture:


It would have to be shooting through the hull in order to target anything within ~12".

Testify wrote:The issue at hand here, but wasn't explained at all clearly until page two, is that the assault cannon is on TOP of the SR and therefore would have to shoot through itself.
Look at this picture:


It would have to be shooting through the hull in order to target anything within ~12".

So? It has a limited vertical angle of fire, that's how it has been designed. I fail to see why it is suddenly unfair that a Space Marine vehicle which is tough and quite heavily armed has to worry about its own positioning to fire at some ground units.

I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

You know how it is... When something new comes out, people like to try an find flaws to make is less useful.

DaKKaLAnce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

You know how it is... When something new comes out, people like to try an find flaws to make is less useful.

My point is that the blind spot has always been there. It's nothing new.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

Those blind spots work both ways though. The rules are pretty clear that you only get 45 degrees, and I suggest you use some of that to point your turret at models on the ground. That limits the upwards arc a bit.

What's interesting is you could end your move on top of a building gaining quite a bit of height making it even harder for enemy units to "see" you, or you could end on a gentle slope that changes your angle of attack, pitching you toward the ground or sky.
I really don't like true line of sight and perfer a more abstract system; but that's not for this thread.



-Matt

Consider this: the models are static. Imagine the Stormraven in combat. It is moving all around, so an object in front of it can still be hit as it would pitch down and fire on it.

There. Stormraven on attack vector -



No more stupid blind spot.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

Those blind spots work both ways though. The rules are pretty clear that you only get 45 degrees, and I suggest you use some of that to point your turret at models on the ground. That limits the upwards arc a bit.

What's interesting is you could end your move on top of a building gaining quite a bit of height making it even harder for enemy units to "see" you, or you could end on a gentle slope that changes your angle of attack, pitching you toward the ground or sky.
I really don't like true line of sight and perfer a more abstract system; but that's not for this thread.

-Matt

That 45 degree angle only comes into play for vehicles though. Infantry models can fire up at your vehicle sitting on top of the building from right below it, no worrying about angles there.

"The 3 XV88 Broadsides were lying on their backs in the grass, looking at the funny shaped clouds when suddenly this flying box blocked their view so they blasted it."

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

rigeld2 wrote:My point is that the blind spot has always been there. It's nothing new.

And there were several threads discussing the issue when the model was released. With more or less the same outcome... some pointing out that the rules are the rules, and others claiming that models on the large flight stem should have an exception just, you know, because.

Horst wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

And you have now modeled for advantage by doing something the rules did not allow you to do. Some people may refuse to play you, and in tourneys, judges may ask you to play LOS as if it was level and not on a modified for advantage stand. You have accomplished nothing by doing this except possibly bullying some casual gamers into gaining an advantage you don't deserve.

Congrats.

As soon as you shoot at something with your modified LOS, the game ends.

Next they'll be telling you predator sponsons should be able to fire through the hull because they can swivel more than 180.... fail.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

This rule has saved my bugs, more than once.

nkelsch wrote:

Horst wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

And you have now modeled for advantage by doing something the rules did not allow you to do. Some people may refuse to play you, and in tourneys, judges may ask you to play LOS as if it was level and not on a modified for advantage stand. You have accomplished nothing by doing this except possibly bullying some casual gamers into gaining an advantage you don't deserve.

Congrats.

As soon as you shoot at something with your modified LOS, the game ends.

Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

It's not "now". Its not like 6th edition changed how the model is shaped.

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."

Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

It's not "now". Its not like 6th edition changed how the model is shaped.

And if he didn't do it for 'advantage' and it was cinematic, then he would have no problem pretending the default angle of the stock model for LOS, which means the blind spot is intact.

If there was no vertical limitations, the rulebook wouldn't have the 45degree rules. But it does. Which means modifying a model to increase the arc or change the arc to gain more firing range than intended is modeling for advantage.

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

Oh the horror. One Marine vehicle gets slightly nerfed by having to move a certain way and it's ok to model it to negate a firing arc restriction inherent in the model?

You were one of the people who said that modelling a DCA with a Power Axe was MFA and, effectively, against the spirit of the game.

Care to explain why that particular case of MFA, which is actually within the rules as it's just showing WYSIWYG, is bad but this one, which is purely MFA by changing the actual dimensions of the model itself, is ok?

Horst wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."

Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

If you just want to do it for looks, sure.
If you want to actually use the new firing arc, no.

The former is absolutely fine. The latter would get a TO called over.

Horst wrote:Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

Sure, you can build your models however you want. But if your modifications alter the way the model functions in game, some people will see it as modelling for advantage. If they see it as providing a big enough change to how the original model functions, they will either insist you play it as an unmodified model, or refuse to play your army that includes it.

Man, this edition is just going to create so many more entitled players... (sad panda)

What's the range of a storm raven's blind spot if the turret was firring at a 90 degree angle from the direction of travel?

Looking at the the image on page 2, it seems that if the turret is pointing to the side, the 45 degree rule can allow it to engage targets closer than when firing forwards, as there the barrels overhang the hull a fair margin but then again, this is all speculation on my part, I've not seen one at my gaming group yet.

TL: DR can't storm raven just use POTMS to do drive bys?

I also find it funny that I get the same downward effect if my flyer was sitting on a slope downwards. (I'm looking at you realm of battle board)

Does that mean I suddenly gain an extra 45 degrees cause a flyer is slanted down by the terrain? Or should I somehow hold it up so it's perfectly horizontal since it ideally should be flying and supposed to ignore terrain?

Or the reverse, if I'm pointed up due to the terrain it's currently over. Do I suddenly lose all ability to shoot anything since now I'm pointed at the sky?

How about if I'm shooting missles? Do they get to move up and down like guns? How do you guys deal with those?

Is there a difference between a missle and a rocket in these cases?

And if he didn't do it for 'advantage' and it was cinematic, then he would have no problem pretending the default angle of the stock model for LOS, which means the blind spot is intact.

Big Sign!

I have to say your stormraven looks a lot better than it does if it is straight horizontal. So why should anyone disallow you to convert it that way?
But since the conversion is obviously done for a better look (you deny that you model for advantage) we just assume that it would be horizontal and we are all good.
You are complaining about that? Why, then, it doesn't alter your beautiful model in any way...

Crablezworth wrote:Man, this edition is just going to create so many more entitled players... (sad panda)

Sorry, but what does that even mean?

If you really feel that you can't get enough of a downward angle with the autocannons, use lascannons. They are slightly longer, and as you measure LOS from the END of the barrel, that lets you take advantage of the the downward slope of the cockpit a little more.

Yes, there's a blind spot. So next turn, move exactly how many inches you want (using a 90 degree turn to truncate the minimum distance if needed) and then fire all of your guns. Problem solved.

DMajiko wrote:If you really feel that you can't get enough of a downward angle with the autocannons, use lascannons. They are slightly longer, and as you measure LOS from the END of the barrel, that lets you take advantage of the the downward slope of the cockpit a little more.

Actually you trace LoS along the barrel, not from the end. So dreadnoughts can't point their guns straight up and draw LoS from the tips.

Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Oh, my mistake. Still, the LC is thinner than the AC, so it rests at a lower angle for the same effect.

But my second statement stands, which I will reword: the thing flies so d--n fast, how'd you let something get in your blind spot to begin with?

Also, I'm totally behind Stormraven drive-bys. Maybe I'll mod my next one to have the Marine Pilot waving his bolt pistol out the cockpit...

Drunkspleen wrote:

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Easy there tiger, let's not be getting personal or over sensitive there huh?

DMajiko wrote:Oh, my mistake. Still, the LC is thinner than the AC, so it rests at a lower angle for the same effect.

But my second statement stands, which I will reword: the thing flies so d--n fast, how'd you let something get in your blind spot to begin with?

Also, I'm totally behind Stormraven drive-bys. Maybe I'll mod my next one to have the Marine Pilot waving his bolt pistol out the cockpit...

Make sure he's holding it Gangsta Style.

Drunkspleen wrote:

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Yea, how DARE I modify a vehicle so its weapons aren't useless against most targets.

I am truly histories greatest monster.

Hitler, move over.

Horst wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Yea, how DARE I modify a vehicle so its weapons aren't useless against most targets.

I am truly histories greatest monster.

Hitler, move over.

They're only useless if the targets are close enough to be in their design-inherent blind spot, in which case you've messed up your movement. With being able to pre-measure there's no real excuse to ending up in that kind of situation. You know the rough range that those guns can hit ground targets, you measure from the unit you want to shoot at to find out where you need to go to be able to shoot them and then move there.

You messing up your movement doesn't mean that the models guns are useless.

Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

I would never ever even thought about this without this thread. It seems to absurd to assume that a flying vehicle is actually glued in the air and cannot alter its angle at all.

Many people model their Stormraven guns under the wings anyway, as they look stupid on the roof. What happens then?

And how about terrain? As noted, this ruling causes agled terrain to alter fliers' weapon arcs massively.

BTW, I don't know what kind ow missiles Storm Eagle has, but better hope they're strictly anti-aircraft, as with this kind of ruling it is pretty much impossible to hit anything on the ground level with them, regardless of the distance.


Interestingly, the new orc planes and Stormtalon have their noses pointing slightly downwards with the standard assembly. So those can shoot at things on the ground more easily?

There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

azreal13 wrote:But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Zooming fliers can't pivot at the end of their move.

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

Horst wrote:

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

If I were you I would model it at an angle then try to find less douchy people to play with.

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things.

That is not a rule.

No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists.

Page 72: In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally , assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally 45 degrees.

And then is a page full of diagrams where HULL blocks LOS.

This very situation has rules to handle the situation. almost all vehicles have explicit blind spots.

You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Yes we can, because there is a correct way to mount the model and rules that give vehciles limited range of fire and blind spots.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

Show us the rule that allows you to modify the base and modeling for advantage? the ruleset is permissive. I do see rules that require you to use the base the model came with...

tgf wrote:

Horst wrote:

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

If I were you I would model it at an angle then try to find less douchy people to play with.

I've been using it for over a year now, and someone just brought this up... and I had no retort. Hence this post.

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. 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 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. 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 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Still a good effort

Guess I haven't memorized the rules 100% yet. Seems strange they would do this, seems unnecessary. As far as mounting tilting down, I don't think that is MFA, its a conversion, and it limits your upwards shots should you ever need to take them. I have 2 dakkajets and 2 sythes, and to be honest I mounted the dakka's down because that is the way I imagined they would look when doing a strafing run, I have no idea if they are mounted "correctly" or not. The sythes on the other hand are just zooming flat.

Using the terrain to change your arc angles is not a problem since most vehicles can do this to hit higher angled targets (although a dangerous test will occur) or lower angled targets in the case for flyers.

RE: MFA

MFA is like placing tau skimmers on their landing gear to get better cover for the vehicle and infantry behind it, drones flat on the floor to gain cover (almost impossible now to get cover for drones due to their stands).

We are still talking about a blindspot of about maybe 6-7" from the flyer's base... which means ther stormraven player got out manuvered and is bad at playing the game.

Most people will be very liberal with the 45degree arc.

If someone is under you... fly somewhere else

shock_at wrote:Using the terrain to change your arc angles is not a problem since most vehicles can do this to hit higher angled targets (although a dangerous test will occur) or lower angled targets in the case for flyers.

RE: MFA

MFA is like placing tau skimmers on their landing gear to get better cover for the vehicle and infantry behind it, drones flat on the floor to gain cover (almost impossible now to get cover for drones due to their stands).

Well rules-wise Tau vehicles (except for Piranhas) are allowed to land in game. They come with Landing Gear which allows them, if they do not move, to land on the ground and no longer count as a skimmer for that turn. So that particular tactic isn't technically MFA unless the vehicle moves, in which case it should be back on its stand. They can't do it on the first turn though.

Except landing gear does not give permission to remove the base. Yes it no longer counts as a skimmer, but it must still be on the supplied base.

In the future there are only fliers that travel exactly 50 feet from the ground maintaining a completely horizontal flight path.

tgf wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. 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 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

Still a good effort

Guess I haven't memorized the rules 100% yet.

They had nearly the same rule in 5th; the rule about vertical traverse was just in a different paragraph, instead of being in the same one with the one about horizontal traverse.

tgf wrote:Seems strange they would do this, seems unnecessary.

It's necessary because the terrain and models are three-dimensional.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. 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 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

That only applies to models where because of how it was converted or glued it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. This is not carte' blanche to ignore how the model was designed. Yes if you glue the barrels pointing up to look cool or some kind of decorative pate under the barrels you are allowed to assume the barrels can still swivel, not that you can ignore the actual hull of the model.

I'm a little puzzled by the people suggesting that enforcing the weapons' fire arcs as laid out in the vehicle is in some way TFG behaviour. Certainly it would make more real-world sense to allow the vehicle to pivot to better bring weapons to bear... but the rules don't do so, so I don't really see any reason to assume that it should be possible.

Besides, if you're going to bring real-world logic into it, roof-mounted weapons wouldn't generally be intended for use against ground targets anyway. So them not having an ideal arc of fire to do so actually makes more sense, from that point of view.

We had this exact same discussion, what, 2 years ago?

This exact conceptual discussion is the reason that the following 2 photos are in my Gallery:



and



The first is a Valkyrie at the most extreme angle one could place it on the Flight stem without gluing and still have enough stability to not worry about it falling over.

The Second is showing the basic seating.

If I can find that thread I will edit and link to it.

insaniak wrote:Besides, if you're going to bring real-world logic into it, roof-mounted weapons wouldn't generally be intended for use against ground targets anyway. So them not having an ideal arc of fire to do so actually makes more sense, from that point of view.

Sadly my second-hand Stormraven has Plasma Cannons in the roof turret... Blast weapons that you can't fire at flyers. So not only do I have the blind spot but the weapon system is ground targets only.

Please tell me those toolbars at the top of your browsers are for trolling purposes...

An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

HoverBoy wrote:An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

lol... valks and vendettas.

Yea, its a real problem for you guys, because, you know, guard have so many top turret mounted assault cannons on fliers.

Go back to playing your underpriced overgunned fliers, we're talking about stormravens here.

Spetulhu wrote:Sadly my second-hand Stormraven has Plasma Cannons in the roof turret... Blast weapons that you can't fire at flyers. So not only do I have the blind spot but the weapon system is ground targets only.

The Stormraven's roof turret is nicely level with the roof of the Imperial Bastion...

Horst wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

lol... valks and vendettas.

Yea, its a real problem for you guys, because, you know, guard have so many top turret mounted assault cannons on fliers.

Go back to playing your underpriced overgunned fliers, we're talking about stormravens here.

Your jealousy. It is delicious.

Now so whats the verdict on the flying dumpster? Is the asscannon not able to hit ground targets 18inches or less away.

You can't change a model for an advantage.... that would be "modelling for an advantage"

How anyone can think its allowable via the rules is beyond me. Might compassionate friends allow it? Sure. Are they allowing you to break the rules? Yes.

BTW. If you are just a few inches off center to a unit in front of you, you LOS and 45 degree angle requires less than 5 inches to hit something on the table. Just don't be silly enough to put something in your blind spot (which simply is there).

This is like complaing that its unfair the demolisher cannon on a vindicator can't hit something behind it... that's kinda what fire arcs are about.

Okay, say i took a vendetta,and modeled it so its wing lascannons are in a 180 degree vertical turret so i can shoot straight behind me. Is that MFA. Yes. Modelling a drednaughts base so it can shoot over rhinos. MFA.

Modelling X unit so it has Y advantage is still MFA.

Just play it like it is, and quit complaining. If its such a big deal, then remove the asscannons or actually use thought in the movement phase to align the target.

You keep using this term, modeling for advantage. Point it out to me in the rulebook.

What page is it on.

Oh, your on of those guys. Well its not in the rulebook, its a player convention especially at tournaments. However do remember the most important rule is to have fun, and if your MFA makes player not have fun then good luck finding a game.

Modeling For Advantage refers to the practice of altering a model's size and/or shape substantially to create a game advantage not given by the model's official rules or original designers.

Back in 3rd edition the archetypal advantage was a kneeling wraithlord or crawling hive tyrant, which under those LOS rules could then hide behind normal infantry units, while shooting to full effect.

The game rules do not explicitly forbid doing it. Most large national and international tournaments forbid it in their tournament packets. Most local tournaments and players either refuse to use substantially-altered models to be used, or require the player to play as if they were the stock model, giving any ambiguous situations to your opponent if there's a doubt.

Drunkspleen wrote:Please tell me those toolbars at the top of your browsers are for trolling purposes...

No they were my Wife's toolbars for various garbage that she wouldn't listen to me to remove.

Also they let in Viruses that killed that Computer. This one is toolbar free.



Oh, and One more thing; while I could not find the Original Thread, I re-posted those pictures because You and I are in complete agreement on this topic.

Using the 22.5 degree Arc from the Weapons(up in the extreme angle photo, and Down in the Standard) the only one that is actually feasible for use is the Standard Angle.

Sure there is about a 5" blind spot to most standard models, but that is literally it; and it will be rare for entire units(that are not packed into nice little "Blast me" groups, or only 3 or fewer models) to be entirely within that 4" blind buffer(4" because they must remain 1" away from the base).

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Oh, your one of those guys. Well its not in the rulebook, its a player convention especially at tournaments. However do remember the most important rule is to have fun, and if your MFA makes player not have fun then good luck finding a game.

We're talking about a guy who is obviously counting his Ultramarines successors as Blood Angels or Grey Knights, even though Codex Space Marines is basically codex Ultramarines and friends... With his army of "most-powerful-power-armour-codex-at-the-moment" chapter, modelling for advantage is probably as natural to him as peeing when you wake up. Some people just have a different meta. If you don't like it, you're just going to have to call up a judge and hope he hasn't got 3 stormravens of his own.

Now if you will excuse me I am going to finish rebasing my three skiing landraiders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_(driving_stunt)

So how do you guys play missles and rockets? air only? I'm kind of wondering about the Thunderhawk model as well then.




Totally Fethed cannon? You'll never get to shoot at anything other than another flier with a blast template?

Isn't there a small difference between 5th and 6th?

In 5th, the rule said you MUST glue it to the base if the model was supplied with one. And it had to be the specific base the model came with.

In 6th, it's assumed they are on the base they are supplied with. And sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases...

Then 2nd sentence doesn't refer to models that came without a base at all, this comes after. And first merely assumes they were mounted on the base they came with.

How does that forbid basing your models however you want to? It's too vague either way.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Horst wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

lol... valks and vendettas.

Yea, its a real problem for you guys, because, you know, guard have so many top turret mounted assault cannons on fliers.

Go back to playing your underpriced overgunned fliers, we're talking about stormravens here.

Your jealousy. It is delicious.

Now so whats the verdict on the flying dumpster? Is the asscannon not able to hit ground targets 18inches or less away.

Depends as if it shoots sideways it's far closer, also it will shred our planes quite easy most of the time.

This thread is full of players who never get over the butthurt of being done over by a Storm Raven

Testify wrote:This thread is full of players who never get over the butthurt of being done over by a Storm Raven

In a few more weeks I'm sure more people will feel the pain of the doom scythes. I've already been tabled 3 times by them so I'm all about the necron air forces atm. Freaking twin linked str 7 tesla 4 weapons suck! even worse than AC psyfleman dreads for what they can do and the mobility of the platform they are on for price is really damn OP. I blame the guy in my local area that had the necron air force like months ago in anticipation of this craziness. We all dread playing him now. So far already made the BA guy feel bad, making me take apart my GK completely, and pissing off the DE / Eldar guy. The Space wolves doesn't like it either and the sister's player just refuses to play his list now.

If you don't like the Stormraven assault cannon turret's limited arc of fire against ground targets, I suggest purchasing the twin-linked lascannon turret instead. I don't suggest altering your base or model to get around this rule, as doing so is clearly modeling for advantage. If, in competitive play, I encounter people who either attempt to exploit altered models to get around this limitation or disregard the limitation completely, I will call over a judge.

Honestly, I'm stunned by the number of people here who are shocked-- shocked! to find that their Stormravens have to obey the actual rules for arcs of fire. If I modeled a Leman Russ with Predator sponsons so that they could have a 360 degree arc of fire, that would obviously be modelling for advantage and I would not expect to be allowed to exploit this in competitive play. If I claimed that my Land Raider Redeemer should be able to fire through its own center to hit units in front of it with both flame templates, people would laugh at me. Just because you didn't realize the limitations of top-mounted weapons against ground targets when you bought your model doesn't mean that you get to ignore those limitations.

I once had an argument where a landraider was on a crater (thus up quite high) and I'd positioned an infantry model right up against it.

He didn't want to believe he couldn't point his assault cannon downwards through the landraider to fire at it.

Shandara wrote:I once had an argument where a landraider was on a crater (thus up quite high) and I'd positioned an infantry model right up against it.

He didn't want to believe he couldn't point his assault cannon downwards through the landraider to fire at it.

Then he should have pivotted. That's completely different to what's being discussed here, i.e. a 250 point model's main weapon being unable to draw LOS to anything within 12" of it.
I would hazard a guess that there are plenty of Storm Raven users who've never had this problem in tournaments or in casual play.

Just because you didn't realize the limitations of top-mounted weapons against ground targets when you bought your model doesn't mean that you get to ignore those limitations

I didn't realize my thunder hawk cannon would never be able to fire at another object other than another thunder hawk (which is now impossible due to flier rules and blast templates) and was a grand waste of 400 bucks. Ugg on my face I guess. Go fig rules breaking things. Maybe someone would be nice enough to make a tall enough bastion for me to shoot at once in a while.

sudojoe wrote:Totally Fethed cannon? You'll never get to shoot at anything other than another flier with a blast template?

It wouldn't be the first time a Forgeworld model has wound up not fitting within the 40K rules. See Super Heavies and moving on from Reserve in 5th edition...

Shandara wrote:How does that forbid basing your models however you want to? It's too vague either way.

It doesn't. They've gone back to assuming that players will do the 'right' thing, rather than risk having people refuse to play them for odd basing shenanigans.

Playing a game is a social contract. If you start trying to find creative ways to manipulate the rules in your favour, people will disapprove. GW don't need to write rules to cover that situation... players will choose for themselves where to draw the line, just as they have done in the past, regardless of what the rules did and didn't allow.

Testify wrote:This thread is full of players who never get over the butthurt of being done over by a Storm Raven

I find myself a little curious as to whether or not one of your 'This thread is full of...' observations will ever actually be remotely accurate. Either way, they're unnecessary and add nothing to the discussion.

For the record, I have played exactly one game against a Storm Raven to date, and it got off one successful shot with it's turret, taking out a single Long Fang. My claim that it should follow the rules like every other vehicle is nothing to do with being being on the wrong end of the 'raven's weapons. You can't assume that just because someone is arguing against something that they're doing so out of a personal hang up about it. Or rather, you can... but most of the time that assumption will be wrong.

I'd still like to hear how Storm Eagle and Thunderhawk models are supposed to be able to fire at anything with their roof weapons...

sudojoe wrote:In a few more weeks I'm sure more people will feel the pain of the doom scythes. I've already been tabled 3 times by them so I'm all about the necron air forces atm. Freaking twin linked str 7 tesla 4 weapons suck!

Don't forget the nice S10 AP1 line weapon, the Death Ray... Faced them myself a few weeks back and it was a disaster. The things took out 2-3 units per round of firing (slowing down after they run out of targets ofc) and to boot they have a nasty habit of falling over to smash your minis for real. The Necron player can play with himself after this for all I care. Not going to join any game that's so totally not fun at all for an army with no AA and no basic weapons that can even glance the things.

Crimson wrote:I'd still like to hear how Storm Eagle and Thunderhawk models are supposed to be able to fire at anything with their roof weapons...

insaniak wrote:The Stormraven's roof turret is nicely level with the roof of the Imperial Bastion...

...applies just as easily to the Storm Eagle and Thunderhawk. And...

insaniak wrote:It wouldn't be the first time a Forgeworld model has wound up not fitting within the 40K rules. See Super Heavies and moving on from Reserve in 5th edition...

Crimson wrote:I'd still like to hear how Storm Eagle and Thunderhawk models are supposed to be able to fire at anything with their roof weapons...

Simple-- use that 45 degree arc of fire in conjunction with the long range of the weapons in question. You'll have to plan out your attacks more with regards to movement speeds, but that's the way all flyers work in 6e.

And as noted, try drawing that 45 degree arc from the gun down the ground. The blind spot's not as big/bad as you may think.

As you can see from this picture, the hull of the Thunderhawk prevents the cannon moving downwards pretty much at all. IIRC this is a template weapon, so it useless against aircraft. So only legimate targets are models sitting on a roof of a high building... And even though this is a Forgeworld model, it is not Forgeworld design.

Horst wrote:

The_Solitaire wrote:Space marines =/= common sense.

I would have to agree with the +-45degree vertical transverse for vehicles. It doesn't make sense to have a Leman Russ being able to shoot in a nearly upwards fashion, nor for a Stormraven to shoot at something directly below it.

I agree. However, the problem isn't shooting things directly below it. It can't hit things even 12" in front of it.

With that 45 degree transverse, it can't hit anything less than 18" away from it or so... with a gun that has a max range of 24".

Can you adjust your flying base so that the storm raven has a "nose down" attitude? That should give you a bigger "sweet spot" for your assault cannon.

But I agree with Testify on this one. Your opponent sounds like a dick.

Mann, KK etc all have the rules 100% spot on, as usual.

The TLD on top of the hawk CAN hit ground targets, by shooting the to side (turret mount) or by hitting targets on an elevation.

Crimson wrote:And even though this is a Forgeworld model, it is not Forgeworld design.

No, it's a GW design for a completely different game.

The Thunderhawk was not designed for 40K. It was a vehicle created for Epic.


And, ultimately, who designed it is irrelevant anyway. You're looking at the situation in reverse... you're trying to suggest that the way people are interpreting the rules must be wrong because it makes a badly-designed vehicle's poorly-positioned cannon not as effective as it could be, rather than just looking at it as an example of a bad vehicle design rendering a vehicle not as effective under the current rules as it could be if either the design or the rules were different.

Wait, as I was casualy flicking through a white dwarf, I happened to see a Storm Raven (assembled by GW) that was on a yaw to the right. . .

If they can do it why can't we?
But that aside I would happily play against a model converted to be "strafing", it looks good and it wouldn't really alter the game too much(a little, but not a heap)

And actualy my Storm Raven Stand was faulty and had a slight angle to it. . .

redkommando wrote:Wait, as I was casualy flicking through a white dwarf, I happened to see a Storm Raven (assembled by GW) that was on a yaw to the right. . .

If they can do it why can't we?

Nobody said you can't.

Just that some people might object, and/or insist on you playing the model as 'standard' if they think that it's giving your model an in-game advantage.


Besides, the pics GW show of the models are intended to showcase the models, not the game rules. Go back through Codexes and White Dwarfs for the last couple of decades and you might be surprised by the number of rule-breaking armies or models that have been pictured over the years.

cgmckenzie wrote:
Let's break it down

The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with.

The rules are written for the stormraven to be on the base it is supplied with. Changing the pitch/yaw of the base mount makes the base not the one the rules were written for.

I disagree strongly with this. You could use the base provided and move the point where it connects to the model back toward the tail. In that way, the SR will be balanced with a nose down attitude. It's the same base - the base the model was supplied with. Just like a Vindicator can rotate around the z-axis in order to shoot it's demolisher cannon, the Storm raven should be able to pitch in order to shoot it's weapons. This is NOT modelling for advantage.

Keep in mind that the storm raven model was released years before there were rules for flyers. Do you really expect that the storm raven's assault cannon was NOT intended to shoot at ground targets? Come on.

Its not MFA to tilt down, or sideways its just a conversion. There is no proper way to mount it, hell that damn thing is so wobbly already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on a side note, do my eyes deceive me or is the storm raven 82.50?

insaniak wrote:
Nobody said you can't.

Just that some people might object, and/or insist on you playing the model as 'standard' if they think that it's giving your model an in-game advantage.

So what about my Storm Raven then? I havent converted it and its leaning forward a bit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:
on a side note, do my eyes deceive me or is the storm raven 82.50?

Its 129.00 NZD. . . Sad Face

Grugknuckle wrote:I disagree strongly with this. You could use the base provided and move the point where it connects to the model back toward the tail. In that way, the SR will be balanced with a nose down attitude. It's the same base - the base the model was supplied with. Just like a Vindicator can rotate around the z-axis in order to shoot it's demolisher cannon, the Storm raven should be able to pitch in order to shoot it's weapons. This is NOT modelling for advantage.

For what it's worth, I actually more or less agree with this. I don't really see tipping the model forwards a little any more modelling for advantage than using kneeling legs on a Guardsman.

It may reduce the minimum range on the guns, but it;s also going to reduce the maximum range, since you're still stuck with the 45 degree arc.

Keep in mind that the storm raven model was released years before there were rules for flyers.

The rules for flyers aren't the problem. It's the rules for vehicle fire arcs that are causing all the hullaballoo... and they're almost identical now to how they were when the Storm Raven was released.

Do you really expect that the storm raven's assault cannon was NOT intended to shoot at ground targets? Come on.

It can shoot at ground targets. Just not if they are too close.

The Predator turret has exactly the same problem... just not to quite the same extreme. It's simply a limitation of the vehicle design.

The rules for flyers aren't the problem. It's the rules for vehicle fire arcs that are causing all the hullaballoo... and they're almost identical now to how they were when the Storm Raven was released.

I understand that, but I didn't make my point very clear. Let me re-state. Some of the posters were arguing that the assault cannon is an anti-aircraft weapon and thus not intended to shoot at the ground. I call "shenanigans" on that because - as I pointed out - the storm raven model was released years before the rules for flyers.

It can shoot at ground targets. Just not if they are too close. The Predator turret has exactly the same problem... just not to quite the same extreme. It's simply a limitation of the vehicle design.

The Predator still has a very large area that are covered by each sponson - it's just to the sides of the tank. By contrast, if the "can't shoot through the hull & and can't tilt the model" set of posters are correct, the storm raven's assault cannon seems almost useless. The minimum range for which the AC can shoot at ground targets is - depending on which poster's measurements you believe - between 12 to 18" from the front of the gunship and only has a 90 degree arc from left to right. I just don't think that GW intended to put a useless weapon on the SR.

But let me also point out that the actual pitch / yaw and altitude of a storm raven model is going to vary from model to model EVEN IF they are assembled as per the instructions. The models aren't that consistent and some model builders are more precise than others. I suspect that the different measurements of the minimum range that have been reported in this thread are probably due to this fact. So this opens up another can of worms - When is it modelling for advantage? If you and I both build storm ravens - and build them as directed by the instructions - but your model just happens to tilt nose down a little, now you have an advantage. If i then go an put some fishing weights in the nose of my gunship to even the playing field, suddenly I am MFA. There is something wrong with this situation.

For the record, I don't use storm ravens but a friend of mine does. I have never said to him, "No no! You can't shoot through your own hull!"

"Years"? It was released during the rules development for 6th. 6th didnt just drop from nowhere.

Perhaps I have missed something but there is no 3D shooting in 40k. Its all done on a 2D plane.

Technically the assualt cannon/plasma cannon/lascannon turret is a turret so is governed by the arcs for shooting as outline in the BRB so it has a 360 degree arc. Now we've established that, it needs to draw los but has it been established what blocks los in the rules? I'm on my lunch hour at work so don't have my rulebook but this topic interests me.

WhoopieMonster wrote:Perhaps I have missed something but there is no 3D shooting in 40k. Its all done on a 2D plane.

Technically the assualt cannon/plasma cannon/lascannon turret is a turret so is governed by the arcs for shooting as outline in the BRB so it has a 360 degree arc. Now we've established that, it needs to draw los but has it been established what blocks los in the rules? I'm on my lunch hour at work so don't have my rulebook but this topic interests me.

Shooting isn't done in 2D. There are rules for a guns vertical arc in the rule book.

Isn't the main cannon on the thunderhawk an ordinance weapon and thus doesn't need LOS? I don't have the rules handy but I think it is. I also think the Storm eagles missile racks are ordinance large blast as well.

WhoopieMonster wrote:Perhaps I have missed something but there is no 3D shooting in 40k. Its all done on a 2D plane.

So not right. There are horizontal arcs to all vehicle weapons...

Blind spots are reality... A storm raven can shoot the ground, just not stuff basically under it. It is not designed to shoot stuff under it. Lern2Maneuver.

nkelsch wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:Perhaps I have missed something but there is no 3D shooting in 40k. Its all done on a 2D plane.

So not right. There are horizontal arcs to all vehicle weapons...

Blind spots are reality... A storm raven can shoot the ground, just not stuff basically under it. It is not designed to shoot stuff under it. Lern2Maneuver.

I was unaware that a 12" blind spot in all directions counted as stuff under it.

Hell, with it tilted down like I've modeled it, the blind spot STILL EXISTS, its just like 3"-4", which I agree, it probably shouldn't be able to hit.

nkelsch wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:Perhaps I have missed something but there is no 3D shooting in 40k. Its all done on a 2D plane.

So not right. There are horizontal arcs to all vehicle weapons...

Blind spots are reality... A storm raven can shoot the ground, just not stuff basically under it. It is not designed to shoot stuff under it. Lern2Maneuver.

The guy above you already pointed that out in a less troll like manner. I didn't say blind spots didn't exsist nor did I allued to having horrible problems with my Stormraven and placing it appropriately on the battlefield. But you didn't answer my second question. Which is what can block line of sight? Several people have stated a vehicle cannot shoot through its own hull. As daft as my question appears, does the BRB state that. The gun arcs generally prevent you from doing so, but obviously they failed to consider several units when coming up with them.

WhoopieMonster wrote: The gun arcs generally prevent you from doing so, but obviously they failed to consider several units when coming up with them.

Yes... you cannot shoot through your own hull and there is a full page of about 6 color diagrams showing this fact. They show how many weapons stop being able to see LOS when they reach the edge of the hull.

WhoopieMonster wrote: Now we've established that, it needs to draw los but has it been established what blocks los in the rules?

Yes, it's an established fact in the rules that you cannot draw LoS through your own hull.

rigeld2 wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote: Now we've established that, it needs to draw los but has it been established what blocks los in the rules?

Yes, it's an established fact in the rules that you cannot draw LoS through your own hull.

Established by what rule.

nkelsch, stop posting idiotic remarks and actually quote me a page that says I cannot shot through my own hull.

Those diagrams show your firing arc based on the type of weapon mount it is. The top weapon mount on the Stormraven is a turret, ergo it has a 360 degree weapon arc. So again please point out where it says I cannot shoot through my own hull.

Page 72, fairly easy to find in the rulebook.

So, again: it is tough that the SR top mounted gun cannot shoot directly in front at models on the ground.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 72, fairly easy to find in the rulebook.

So, again: it is tough that the SR top mounted gun cannot shoot directly in front at models on the ground.

And the diagrams show that sponsons have MORE than 180 degree range, but are limited by where the hull actually stops the gun being able to see. You have the range of motion based upon how the mount can move and what it can see. The hull blocks this range of motion and range of vision.

This rule did not change since 5th edition. It is the same in 6th edition.

Exactly. Nothing has changed since 5th and 6th in this regards.

The storm chicken can now shoot flyers, and Hurricane Bolters are now pretty good additional weapons, especially on GK vehicles.

Its not a sponson, its a turret.

The arc for turrets clearly depics that the Tank can happily shoot with its turret at models that are stood up close to its rear tracks without issue. The only no-fire zone for the turret weapon is clearly based on the length of its barrel, as you need to be able to draw line of sight (a straight line) to the unit you are shooting. So what blocks line of sight:

According to PG 8, the only thing exempt from blocking line of sight is its own unit. "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there". So a tank can shoot through its own hull, as it is a unit consisting of one model.

So unless you can find something that states I cannot shoot through my hull, I'm following the rules as depicted in the diagrams and as written on the pages.

Edit: A point to further back up my arguement, just take a look at pintle-mounted weapons. It has line of sight no matter what position the enemy models are in. I could position my troops behind the rear hatch of the rhino and according to that diagram it can still see me, thus it can still shoot me.

Look at the picture for the turret mounted weapon again.

The gun can fire 360 degrees, but that unshaded area near the tank is a blind spot. They can't shoot in that area due to inability to hit it with the turret weapon.

that wouldn't exist if you could depress the gun through your own hull to fire through the side of the tank

By the logic that any gun capable of 360'' swivel being able to shoot through the hull, a LR lascannon sponson should be able to also.. Thay can't, as you can't draw LOS through your own hull, as shown in the diagrams.

I see your point but that doesn't change the fact the un-shaded area its still the exact length of the gun barrel.

I will also repeat my point about pintle-mounted weapons as it was an edit.

A point to further back up my arguement, just take a look at pintle-mounted weapons. It has line of sight no matter what position the enemy models are in. I could position my troops behind the rear hatch of the rhino and according to that diagram it can still see me, thus it can still shoot me.

Let me make one thing clear, I do not and will not ever attempt to fire my tanks/flyers weapons through their hull. Its not in the spirit of the game. I'm just playing devils advocate here as I think there is room for abuse currently and I feel it needs more clarity is required.

Whoopie - so despite the rules stating otherwise, you still think you can shoot through your own hull?

Fine, houserule if you want. That isnt the rules.

The Predator Sponson can physically rotate through more than 180 degrees, but it has significantly less than that in actuality.

The arc for a sponson is clearly defined as is the arc for a turret. The two are different. It clearly states where the arc for a sponson starts and ends, which prevents you from shooting through your own hull.

It does not however do that for turret-mounted or pintle-mounted weapons.

Nos, where does it actually state "Vehicles cannot shoot through any part of their own model." or words to that effect?

sudojoe wrote:So how do you guys play missles and rockets? air only? I'm kind of wondering about the Thunderhawk model as well then.




Totally Fethed cannon? You'll never get to shoot at anything other than another flier with a blast template?

Generally you're shooting that cannon at Super Heavies accross the table and shooting everything else and other stuff(super heavies can split fire)

Considering that vehicles can shoot through members of their own squadron, it would be odd if they couldn't also shoot through themselves.

Surely if you shoot through your own hull you should immediately roll on the Vehicle Damage table?

Those shots you're happily blasting through your own vehicle have to be penetrating the armour after all, otherwise they wouldn't be able to carry on to hit the unit you're shooting them at.

"blocked by terrain or models"

Whoopie - reread page 72. Note "Arc of Sight". This is NOT the same thing as "Line of Sight"

The ONLY diagram which talks about Line of Sight is the classic predator diagram, which clearly shows the hull blocks LOS.

You can disagree if you want, but given you are required to draw LOS along the barrel, when you look and find you cannot see the enemy model you are stuffed.

The reasoning for which is that the rest of the squad moves out of the lascannon's way (or whatever) to allow for his shot.

Hull plates don't

This was specifically ruled against in previous editions for what little that's worth. Most players will realise that trying to shoot your left-hand sponson through the crew compartment at an enemt they can't see on the right of the tank is not a viable option, even if they don't put it in 4pt bold type and underline it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:Considering that vehicles can shoot through members of their own squadron, it would be odd if they couldn't also shoot through themselves.

Good points well presented nosferatu1001. Thanks for being patient. As I stated I never intended to make use of my perceptions of the rule, it just looked to me like there was a potential loop hole to use.

I'm now on your side of the fence

Ascalam, I never denied its was idiotic notion, I just over looked the titling on the diagrams and mistook Arc of Sight to grant Line of Sight, leading to my misinterpretation of the rules.

No, as the Line of Sight diagram clearly shows

Sponsons can move more than 180 degrees. When attached to the model they cannot fire their full amount

You are correct, I was in the process of editing my previous post to reflect that when you obviously made your post.

A vehicle "shoots like any other unit", except you draw LOS from gun barrels rather than a model's eye view. In the rules for LOS, does it say that a unit is considered to have LOS through itself?

It doesn't say they don't but as stated by nos, There is a diagram titled "Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight" (PG 72) which explains how los works with vehicles.

WhoopieMonster wrote:It doesn't say they don't but as stated by nos, There is a diagram titled "Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight" (PG 72) which explains how los works with vehicles.

It explains how you draw line of sight from the weapons, nothing about not being able to shoot through your own hull.
It actually explicitly states what does block line of sight - "terrain or models". The vehicle's hull is neither of these.

Pretty sure the shooting rules explicitly allow you to shoot through your own unit as though it wasn't there.

If you could shoot through your own hull do you not think that left sponson would be able to draw los?

WhoopieMonster wrote:If you could shoot through your own hull do you not think that left sponson would be able to draw los?

No because it's 180 degrees.

Do you own a new Predator? If so grab it, you'll find you can turn the sponsons to point at the hull.

Testify wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:If you could shoot through your own hull do you not think that left sponson would be able to draw los?

No because it's 180 degrees.

The diagrams show that it is over 180 degrees. The limit of the angle is the point at which the shot would have to go through the hull of the vehicle to hit its target.

Testify wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:If you could shoot through your own hull do you not think that left sponson would be able to draw los?

No because it's 180 degrees.

A sponson can turn over 180 degrees. Meaning it could draw LOS through the hull, except you are prohibited from doing s
It states "models" block LOS - that would include the vehicle

Some people failed geometry if they look at the pictures on p.72 and claim those fire arcs are 180 degrees.

Technically if sponsons were 180 degrees, at no time could both sponsons ever hit the same target unless the target was the same width or wider than the distance between the two sponsons. The fact some sponsons have an extra 15degrees or so allow you to actually hit some targets with both sponsons when the target is in front of the vehicle. There would be a massive blindspot the width of the vehicle directly in front of every predator/landraider that would extend across the table indefinitely. Right now it is a minor blindspot because they can turn over 180 degrees.

Crablezworth wrote:Next they'll be telling you predator sponsons should be able to fire through the hull because they can swivel more than 180.... fail.

Yup, I'm officially psychic... sigh

nkelsch wrote:Some people failed geometry if they look at the pictures on p.72 and claim those fire arcs are 180 degrees.

Technically if sponsons were 180 degrees, at no time could both sponsons ever hit the same target unless the target was the same width or wider than the distance between the two sponsons. The fact some sponsons have an extra 15degrees or so allow you to actually hit some targets with both sponsons when the target is in front of the vehicle. There would be a massive blindspot the width of the vehicle directly in front of every predator/landraider that would extend across the table indefinitely. Right now it is a minor blindspot because they can turn over 180 degrees.

There is a blind spot in front of every vehicle with a sponson. Its good to about 8-9" in front of it. If you play Nids you learn fast where the guns can't hit your MCs well. Get it in the spot and the vehicle has to rotate to target you with one in its shooting phase and it only gets one sponson.

And just my quick 2 cents on the MFA. If there is any question that the model has be MFA you can request that all mesurements be made from a non-modified model. It comes up on occasion with Nids as well as we have a lot of models that don't/didn't have offical models. Tervigons made from Carnifexes are way to short, same for Terranofexes. Shirkes are often modeled flying, but they are technicaly warriors and should be shown on the ground to determine LoS. I carry a standard warrior with me whenever I play my shrikes becasue people question the extra 3" of LoS they get as modeled. Not that I mind, it is in the rules.

Testify wrote:

WhoopieMonster wrote:It doesn't say they don't but as stated by nos, There is a diagram titled "Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight" (PG 72) which explains how los works with vehicles.

It explains how you draw line of sight from the weapons, nothing about not being able to shoot through your own hull.
It actually explicitly states what does block line of sight - "terrain or models". The vehicle's hull is neither of these.

Pretty sure the shooting rules explicitly allow you to shoot through your own unit as though it wasn't there.

The hull of a vehicle isn't a part of a model?

wow, these arguments get more laughable by the day.

For a unit with such a large range of movement options available to it like the Stormraven, this situation shouldn't have happened to begin with.

Orblivion wrote:For a unit with such a large range of movement options available to it like the Stormraven, this situation shouldn't have happened to begin with.

Think about it... what are you most likely to want to shoot your assault cannon at? The unit your going to assault out of the raven, to support your units charging in and soften it up.

Those are usually in your blind spot.

Horst wrote:

Orblivion wrote:For a unit with such a large range of movement options available to it like the Stormraven, this situation shouldn't have happened to begin with.

Think about it... what are you most likely to want to shoot your assault cannon at? The unit your going to assault out of the raven, to support your units charging in and soften it up.

Those are usually in your blind spot.

This isn't a problem exclusive to the storm raven, either.

I generally want to fire my flamestorm cannons at the unit directly in front of my redeemer, to soften them up before the unit that just jumped out charges... But that creates a rather large blind spot to the Land Raider's front, because you can't swing the cannons all the way around without clipping the disembarked unit.

Different vehicles have different in-built limitations. 'But I want to' is not always the best excuse for ignoring the rules.

Clearly the most durable flyer in 6th isn't good enough, might as well modify the rules to make it better.

HoverBoy wrote:Clearly the most durable flyer in 6th isn't good enough, might as well modify the rules to make it better.

yea, your not biased or anything.

how are stormravens any more durable than vendettas? Cost 70 points more, and can't outflank.

Melta imunity better rear armor. Oh and POMTS nut that's not good enough offencive capabilities indeed. THat said vendettas do need to be at least 30 pts more expencive.

Horst wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Clearly the most durable flyer in 6th isn't good enough,.

how are stormravens any more durable than vendettas? Cost 70 points more, and can't outflank.

But they can Deepstrike instead, have better rear armor and deny Melta weapons the extra AP dice.

And are the only flying assault vehicle.

Horst wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Testify wrote:So you're genuinely suggesting that the Storm Raven's AC can't shoot at anything 18" or less?

Yep, and a Land Raiders left sponson can't shoot at anything too close on the right side of it either, why is it suddenly unfair when it's a vertical issue rather than a horizontal one?

Its unfair in this case because the storm raven only has a tiny window where it can actually shoot its gun. The land raider, on the other hand, can fire at everything within a 180 degree arc of its gun. see the difference?

Actually the equivilent gun would be the T/L assault cannon or HB turret just above the assault ramp, which has a much more limited field of fire. The side sponson guns on a SR are the ones on the side of the hull. Those would be the ones equivilent to the side sponsons on a LR .

Can the T/L assault cannons on a Crusader shoot someone standing against the hull of a LR? Unlikely, unless they are pretty tall. If they are that close you're doing something wrong. Some units can vanish into that dead zone faster than others, due to height differences (grots, swarms etc), and this is perfectly fair.

Same goes with the SR's rather larger dead zone. If they are that close, it's your own fault for letting them get that close in, especially since eyou can move 36'' a turn and still be firing If you are going to have the enhanced LOS vs targets at range (you can see over their cover etc) you have the detractor of having a dead zone for your anti-aircraft turret to shoot at ground targets...


It's a design flaw n the SR. Deal with it. The IOM suck at flying vehicle design from a structural POV.

Frakly the only people whining about the SR being unfair should be the ones it's being used on. It's a potent bit of kit for it's points, and it does have other guns/Missiles you can fire if that one has a lousy shooting angle, you know

Horst wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Clearly the most durable flyer in 6th isn't good enough, might as well modify the rules to make it better.

yea, your not biased or anything.

how are stormravens any more durable than vendettas? Cost 70 points more, and can't outflank.

I play with SR, yet agree with Hoverboy. If you want to be taken seriously I would suggest NOT ascribing negative motives

"I want to" is what your argument boils down to. Sorry, not breaking the rules for you just because.

Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

"Technically" there still dont seem to be any rules requiring all barrels to be able to see, or indeed for determining LOS on weapons with more than one barrel.

UNless anyone else can find a quote covering this? I did look, as I was intrigued as to whether it would have been caught this time round.

Yea it's still one weapon, besides couldn't the gear fold.

Landing gear housing

That issue is that you are told to draw LOS along "the barrel", which does not work when you have more than one barrel. It was an infrequent question in 5th, as there are a couple of ways it cOULD work*, and no guidance either way

* both barrels have to see otherwise no shots, only one needs to see to fire at full effect, and a few in between.

considering the hurricane bolter is three twin linked bolters, one could just fire the top two pairs instead of all three. . . but I think thats illegal

redkommando wrote:Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

The WAAC rules lawyers took over this thread a looong time ago. Good job they're so rare on the table top

Testify wrote:

redkommando wrote:Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

The WAAC rules lawyers took over this thread a looong time ago. Good job they're so rare on the table top

... Yeah, people who actually enjoy playing be the rules are so rare. Good point.

Do you realize how insulting you sound?

Testify wrote:

redkommando wrote:Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

The WAAC rules lawyers took over this thread a looong time ago. Good job they're so rare on the table top

Actually, I have never met a person 'in person' who attempted to shoot through their own hull or disregarded the 45 degree horizontal rules. This has been part of the ruleset for so long, it isn't even one of those changes people are remembering how it used to be.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:

redkommando wrote:Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

The WAAC rules lawyers took over this thread a looong time ago. Good job they're so rare on the table top

... Yeah, people who actually enjoy playing be the rules are so rare. Good point.

Do you realize how insulting you sound?

Bear in mind that Testify was arguing very strongly against DCA with a Power Axe and a Power Sword in that thread before it got locked. Apparently it's only modelling for advantage and a dick move when it doesn't help him.

Your previous selective quote shows wilful misunderstanding.

I agree 100%. From the entire paragraph he only selected the sentences he liked. The rules are quite clear on what the vehicles can shoot at. If he wants to start modeling for advantage and opening that can of worms of a discussion then the answer is that every gaming club and tournament treats MFA differently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Landing gear housing

That issue is that you are told to draw LOS along "the barrel", which does not work when you have more than one barrel. It was an infrequent question in 5th, as there are a couple of ways it cOULD work*, and no guidance either way

* both barrels have to see otherwise no shots, only one needs to see to fire at full effect, and a few in between.

Incredibly Simple solution for all Vehicle mounted, Twin linked weapons: Glue them in place.

When glued in place and using the generic arcs, you determine your LOS from the Weapon's mounting, not along the barrel.

In this case; we know that the hurricane Bolters have a roughly 90* firing arc(they can close in slightly to the fore); so we use Arc of sight 2(BRB Page 72) for the hurricane bolters.

If you built your Vendetta model to mount the 2 Barrels of the Main Twin-lilnked Lascannon(the one that cannot be swapped) on either side of the Cockpit; then you go from the mounting(the main body of the Vendettas) giving you a roughly 1.5" "base point" for your 45* triangle to be centered on.

Personally I just re-kajiggered the Single Lascannon mounting with a Sentinel barrel where the Targeting/Camera do-hickey used to be(as the Valk Version will never carry a Lascannon, not even in 6th)

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:

redkommando wrote:Random thought ;
the Hurricane Bolters shouldn't technically be allowed to shoot considering the bottom two bolters have to shoot through the landing gear housing

The WAAC rules lawyers took over this thread a looong time ago. Good job they're so rare on the table top

... Yeah, people who actually enjoy playing be the rules are so rare. Good point.

Do you realize how insulting you sound?

I apologise if I sounded insulting.

However, I am somewhat sickened by peoples' attitude towards truth. You do realise that objective truth is impossible and that ALL truths are simply a matter of consensus, right?
If your version of the truth means that your friend has wasted £50 and hours of painting on something that is now a lot less effective than he thought it would have been, that that's a matter for you and your friends.
I would never do that, and I've had plenty of guardsmen/tanks blown up by that bastard storm raven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Bear in mind that Testify was arguing very strongly against DCA with a Power Axe and a Power Sword in that thread before it got locked. Apparently it's only modelling for advantage and a dick move when it doesn't help him.

No. I'm a Deamon Prince player and I'm equally as disapointed in the people who insist that LOC comes with a power maul, or that Bloodletter comes with an axe. Sup S10!

Testify wrote:However, I am somewhat sickened by peoples' attitude towards truth.

Perhaps YMDC isn't for you...

You do realise that objective truth is impossible and that ALL truths are simply a matter of consensus, right?

Erm. That's not 100% true. Philosophically sure, but objectively when we have a basis in the rules is absolutely possible.
"Infantry move 6 inches per turn during the Movement Phase." That is an objective truth.

If your version of the truth means that your friend has wasted £50 and hours of painting on something that is now a lot less effective than he thought it would have been, that that's a matter for you and your friends.
I would never do that, and I've had plenty of guardsmen/tanks blown up by that bastard storm raven.

My friends actually do research and learn the rules for a model to see if it's worth buying for their intent. So yes, those who have Storm Ravens know about the blind spot, knew about the blind spot before purchase, and don't try and claim they can shoot through the pilot to hit my Hormagaunts.

rigeld2 wrote:
Erm. That's not 100% true. Philosophically sure, but objectively when we have a basis in the rules is absolutely possible.
"Infantry move 6 inches per turn during the Movement Phase." That is an objective truth.

No it's not. How do I know that you and I have the same definition of inch? Or infantry? Or movement? Or phase?

rigeld2 wrote:
My friends actually do research and learn the rules for a model to see if it's worth buying for their intent. So yes, those who have Storm Ravens know about the blind spot, knew about the blind spot before purchase, and don't try and claim they can shoot through the pilot to hit my Hormagaunts.

This issue has come up once in the past 2/3 years since the Storm Raven was released. AFAIK it's never come up in a tournament setting.
If people knew that the SR had this "blind spot" I doubt anyone would buy/use it.
Imagine if the rulebook had a disclaimer - "Note - the top assault cannon/lascannon cannot shoot at anything closer than 12 inches".

Regarding drawing LOS from only some of the barrels of a given weapon; does this quote from the necron FAQ help? I realise it isn't about the hurricane bolter specifically, but it is a decent precent for multi-barreled individual weapons in general. The gauss flayer arrays on a ghost/doomsday ark have 5 distinct barrels along the length of the hull.

Q: What is the arc of fire for a gauss flayer array? (p53)
A: As it is mounted on the hull it will have a 45 degree arc of fire. However it is slightly unusual in that it has multiple gun barrels. As long as you can draw line of sight along one of them, you can target the unit.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Erm. That's not 100% true. Philosophically sure, but objectively when we have a basis in the rules is absolutely possible.
"Infantry move 6 inches per turn during the Movement Phase." That is an objective truth.

No it's not. How do I know that you and I have the same definition of inch? Or infantry? Or movement? Or phase?

Because the rules and context define them.

rigeld2 wrote:
My friends actually do research and learn the rules for a model to see if it's worth buying for their intent. So yes, those who have Storm Ravens know about the blind spot, knew about the blind spot before purchase, and don't try and claim they can shoot through the pilot to hit my Hormagaunts.

This issue has come up once in the past 2/3 years since the Storm Raven was released. AFAIK it's never come up in a tournament setting.
If people knew that the SR had this "blind spot" I doubt anyone would buy/use it.
Imagine if the rulebook had a disclaimer - "Note - the top assault cannon/lascannon cannot shoot at anything closer than 12 inches".

Neorealist wrote:Regarding drawing LOS from only some of the barrels of a given weapon; does this quote from the necron FAQ help? I realise it isn't about the hurricane bolter specifically, but it is a decent precent for multi-barreled individual weapons in general. The gauss flayer arrays on a ghost/doomsday ark have 5 distinct barrels along the length of the hull.

Q: What is the arc of fire for a gauss flayer array? (p53)
A: As it is mounted on the hull it will have a 45 degree arc of fire. However it is slightly unusual in that it has multiple gun barrels. As long as you can draw line of sight along one of them, you can target the unit.

that is a good find... that is a good clarification as we have had this discussion for TL weapons like lascannons on a LR. One barrel can see, the other cannot and people claim cover, or no LOS, or no re-roll or claim LOS has to be drawn between the two guns as an abstraction or some wacky stuff.

as long as one barrel can draw LOS on a twin-linked gun, that is good enough for me.

This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

I do not claim that the gun can shoot through the hull. It can't.

Nor do I claim that there isn't a blind spot. There is. I just don't think that the blind spot should be as big as it is. And the very fact that the actual blind spot will vary slightly from model to model means that it's only fair to give a little lee-way to them.

Look, if my opponent has a storm raven and he wants to shoot my guys who are 6" in front of it, I'm going to let him. Sure man, you paid the points for this beast. Let's have fun playing 40K -- I don't need to win that badly.

If the guy had modeled his SR with a slight nose down attitude, I wouldn't even think to question it. And I think it's perfectly legit for him to do that. On the other hand, if he hadn't modeled it nose down, I'm not going to punish him for that decision either. Try to use your imagination. The flyer could have nosed in to strafe you, but the model is a static piece and can't move like a real flyer.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Erm. That's not 100% true. Philosophically sure, but objectively when we have a basis in the rules is absolutely possible.
"Infantry move 6 inches per turn during the Movement Phase." That is an objective truth.

No it's not. How do I know that you and I have the same definition of inch? Or infantry? Or movement? Or phase?

Paralyzed by epistemological skepticism. Awesome.

doktor_g wrote:This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

There's no way that it could fly low enough for a gun mounted on top of it to hit, say a grot, standing on the floor by firing in a 2D plane, unless there happened to be a convenient canyon for it to fly through.

I don't think many pilots would willingly fly their aircraft so low to the ground that they couldn't turn without having to pull a sudden high-speed upwards manoeuvre (risking stalling and/or blacking out from G-Force) or end up clipping their wings and dying horribly just so they could fire a top mounted machine gun at their target.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually less than 12", and in 5th you could pivot and shorten the blind spot even more by using your side arc.

Untrue. I measured it. Its about 12".

Unless your 45 degrees is vastly different from mine...

It only has a 60 degree pivot or so, as well.. so there is an EXTREMELY small area it can hit if you stick to the strict RAW of the rules unless you angle it.

As others have said... its a flier. Its supposed to be able to angle itself... because, you know, its like flying and junk.

Think about it like this, the SR probably wasn't just shooting from its current static position. It was shooting all the while it was moving to that position, so the blind spot is no big deal.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

doktor_g wrote:This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

There's no way that it could fly low enough for a gun mounted on top of it to hit, say a grot, standing on the floor by firing in a 2D plane, unless there happened to be a convenient canyon for it to fly through.

I don't think many pilots would willingly fly their aircraft so low to the ground that they couldn't turn without having to pull a sudden high-speed upwards manoeuvre (risking stalling and/or blacking out from G-Force) or end up clipping their wings and dying horribly just so they could fire a top mounted machine gun at their target.

Stormraven has vertical thruster arrays... why can't it use those to maintain a stable angle while only going forward?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

doktor_g wrote:This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

There's no way that it could fly low enough for a gun mounted on top of it to hit, say a grot, standing on the floor firing in a 2D plane, unless there happened to be a convenient canyon for it to fly through.

I don't think many pilots would willingly fly their aircraft so low to the ground that they couldn't turn without having to pull a sudden high-speed upwards manoeuvre (risking stalling and/or blacking out from G-Force) or end up clipping their wings and dying horribly just so they could fire a top mounted machine gun at their target.

It could do a barrel roll every time it wanted to shoot!

If we are going to make up cinematics for rules... it seems like when hovering craft want to shoot, they hover at an axis parallel to the ground and try to stay still. To get the leaning action from the modified base, the plane would need to be moving pretty drastically to recreate that motion. (which would not be conducive to shooting)

I suppose you can point a fighter plane directly into the ground... all I ask is if we make up rules for representing dynamic motion... immediately after you shoot, you then have to test to see if you smash into the ground and die...

And you disagree with this? the ork Bomma has this exact rule as shooting at a ground target is dangerous and requires you to angle your plane at the ground and guess what? sometimes you crash and die. The bomma can drop his payload on his blindspot... but he may also crash into the ground. Why do I as an ork have to test for blowing myself up to shoot my blindspot but marines get it for free simply because someone dislikes playing by the rules?

nkelsch wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

doktor_g wrote:This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

There's no way that it could fly low enough for a gun mounted on top of it to hit, say a grot, standing on the floor firing in a 2D plane, unless there happened to be a convenient canyon for it to fly through.

I don't think many pilots would willingly fly their aircraft so low to the ground that they couldn't turn without having to pull a sudden high-speed upwards manoeuvre (risking stalling and/or blacking out from G-Force) or end up clipping their wings and dying horribly just so they could fire a top mounted machine gun at their target.

It could do a barrel roll every time it wanted to shoot!

If we are going to make up cinematics for rules... it seems like when hovering craft want to shoot, they hover at an axis parallel to the ground and try to stay still. To get the leaning action from the modified base, the plane would need to be moving pretty drastically to recreate that motion. (which would not be conducive to shooting)

I suppose you can point a fighter plane directly into the ground... all I ask is if we make up rules for representing dynamic motion... immediately after you shoot, you then have to test to see if you smash into the ground and die...

And you disagree with this? the ork Bomma has this exact rule as shooting at a ground target is dangerous and requires you to angle your plane at the ground and guess what? sometimes you crash and die. The bomma can drop his payload on his blindspot... but he may also crash into the ground. Why do I as an ork have to test for blowing myself up to shoot my blindspot but marines get it for free simply because someone dislikes playing by the rules?

because marines are better pilots?

Since when is playing by the rules WAAC? Even the idea of that just sounds horribly whiney. I also find it ironic that those who are defending the position of being able to model for advantage to reduce a blind spot are calling those who are against MFA and playing by the rules WAAC.

I want to play the game the way it was designed and written. I don't want to play the game with someone who is going to adjust things just to have an advantage. So I won't.

You are free to Model For Advantage just as I am free to call you a power gamer and not play with you.

EDIT:
Also, as strange as it sounds, it seems like the OP is trolling his own thread

nkelsch wrote:as long as one barrel can draw LOS on a twin-linked gun, that is good enough for me.

Yup, that is how i play it as well. My gaming group has had a few similar discussions to yours from the sounds of it, and everyone had a different idea on how it worked too.

Horst wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

doktor_g wrote:This thing is FLYING!!!! It can change it's altitude from 2' to 2000' so 2D horizontal arc is all that should apply.
DrG

(sorry i yelled).

There's no way that it could fly low enough for a gun mounted on top of it to hit, say a grot, standing on the floor by firing in a 2D plane, unless there happened to be a convenient canyon for it to fly through.

I don't think many pilots would willingly fly their aircraft so low to the ground that they couldn't turn without having to pull a sudden high-speed upwards manoeuvre (risking stalling and/or blacking out from G-Force) or end up clipping their wings and dying horribly just so they could fire a top mounted machine gun at their target.

Stormraven has vertical thruster arrays... why can't it use those to maintain a stable angle while only going forward?

It uses those thrusters when it goes into Hover Mode, which is probably a better bet if you want to shoot at ground targets as it gives you better mobility to get into a position where the unit you're shooting at is not in your blind spot.

As a real world example I will point you to the Harrier Jump Jet. This is a vehicle capable of vertical take off and which can angle itself downwards whilst maintaining altitude whilst it is hovering, the latter being a trick they use at air shows to "bow" to the audience.

In a combat scenario when flying at high speed (which is what is happening if your Stormraven is zooming) the Harrier pilot would never do this manoeuvre as it decreases the lift generated by the wings by the change in angle and requires you to sacrifice forward momentum to maintain your altitude when tilting the aeroplane (which would reduce airflow over the wings and again reduce lift). If they tried to do it whilst flying at high speed they would lose altitude and crash.

Horst wrote:

because marines are better pilots?

Please show me the page with the rule that allows marine players to ignore the rules in the rulebook then?

If you want to make up fluff justifications, it sounds like marines wouldn't fly dangerously enough to risk their vehicles or lives and orks would. If your stormraven ever moved at an angle like on your stand, it is either moving in a way which is not conducive to shooting or seconds from crashing into the ground.

Thank goodness we have rules for vehicles which handles this exact situation and gives vehicles blind spots.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Erm. That's not 100% true. Philosophically sure, but objectively when we have a basis in the rules is absolutely possible.
"Infantry move 6 inches per turn during the Movement Phase." That is an objective truth.

No it's not. How do I know that you and I have the same definition of inch? Or infantry? Or movement? Or phase?

rigeld2 wrote:
My friends actually do research and learn the rules for a model to see if it's worth buying for their intent. So yes, those who have Storm Ravens know about the blind spot, knew about the blind spot before purchase, and don't try and claim they can shoot through the pilot to hit my Hormagaunts.

This issue has come up once in the past 2/3 years since the Storm Raven was released. AFAIK it's never come up in a tournament setting.
If people knew that the SR had this "blind spot" I doubt anyone would buy/use it.
Imagine if the rulebook had a disclaimer - "Note - the top assault cannon/lascannon cannot shoot at anything closer than 12 inches".

Please read the rules of YMDC and stop this nonsense.
This forum is made explicitly to discuss rules. Rules actually in the book, not how somebody feels this game should be played.
Can I bend some rules, even to a tiny, tiny extent just because Swooping Hawk exarch power Intercept is useless? May I model my Warp Spider exarch lying on the ground with weapons on a stick because Surprise Assault is useless? AC can be used with some difficulties. Those two rules will never, ever be brought to use. Is there a rule that allows me to make a bigger change to my model because I have a subjective feeling of being wronged? Can I make alterations to the rules because "I want to" or "my model should be able to do it"? Can Tau players come with 20% points extra because their codex is outdated like no other?

Can I house rule it? Sure. If I changed a rule because it was stupid as hell, do I still play by the rules (YMDC style)? No.

YMDC should be approached like math. Just because you feel sorry for X for being less then a zero doesn't give you the right to alter the equation.
Getting angry at people who abide to YMDC rules, and actually discussing rules is like getting angry at people who are discussing fluff in "40K Background".

Horst wrote:As others have said... its a flier. Its supposed to be able to angle itself... because, you know, its like flying and junk.

a) unsupported by rules
b) Seriously? Trygons are big snakes. They're supposed to wiggle on the ground because, you know, they're like snakes and stuff.

You cool with me having a snaky Trygon?

Macok wrote:This forum is made explicitly to discuss rules. Rules actually in the book, not how somebody feels this game should be played.

Actually, this forum is intended explicitly to discuss both the rules in the book and how people feel it should be played. What we ask is simply that people make it clear when they are presenting an interpretation that deviates from the letter of the rule.

RAW isn't always the be all and end all of a rules discussion, because it often leads to silly places, or things that don't work quite as was probably intended. Whether or not this particular situation fits that bill is a matter of personal opinion...

IMHO, i'd have given you the shot.

not only is that good sportsmanship, but it makes the game more interesting.

If you're playing opponents who play only to win, find new opponents. I play to have a good time. even in a tournament. its all supposed to be about having a good time. its a freaking GAME.

that being said, flier, elevation rules do not apply. pilot wants to hit it, drop the ship till its a foot off the deck. (and yes, you CAN fly that low even at speed)

the 45* rule should only apply to land based vehicles. just my $.02

Rimmy wrote:If you're playing opponents who play only to win, find new opponents. I play to have a good time. even in a tournament. its all supposed to be about having a good time. its a freaking GAME.

The problem I have with that statement is that it implies those that want to not make up rules as we go along aren't good sportsmen and don't play to have a good time.

I dislike that implication - because I also play to have a good time, even in a tournament. It is supposed to be about having a good time. But I like to play by the actual rules.
Just like paintball - I love playing paintball. If you get hit, you're out. How about I just ignore that I got hit and keep playing? It's just a game, right?
Just like chess - I enjoy playing chess. Pawns are pretty restricted in their movement. How about I move a pawn like a Queen? It's just a game, right?
Want me to keep going?

If you're not going to use the rules provided why not just have green plastic army men going "PEW PEW" at each other?

Rimmy wrote:not only is that good sportsmanship, but it makes the game more interesting.

While you certainly can argue that it's good sportsmanship to allow your opponent to change the rules to make his models more effective, wouldn't it also be good sportsmanship for your opponent to not expect you to do so?

If you're playing opponents who play only to win, find new opponents. I play to have a good time. even in a tournament. its all supposed to be about having a good time. its a freaking GAME.

You're making a very large assumption that wanting to play by the rules makes someone a 'win at all cost' player. They're not automatically the same thing.

that being said, flier, elevation rules do not apply. pilot wants to hit it, drop the ship till its a foot off the deck.

Where are the rules that allow you to change the elevation of your flier, or treat it as being anywhere other than where the model is actually sitting?

In my mind accepting the limitations imposed by the rules and abiding by them has always been an integral part of good sportsmanship.

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:As others have said... its a flier. Its supposed to be able to angle itself... because, you know, its like flying and junk.

a) unsupported by rules
b) Seriously? Trygons are big snakes. They're supposed to wiggle on the ground because, you know, they're like snakes and stuff.

You cool with me having a snaky Trygon?

to b- sure, why not. Do a good job modeling it, and I'm happy to let you play it as such.

insaniak wrote:

Rimmy wrote:not only is that good sportsmanship, but it makes the game more interesting.

While you certainly can argue that it's good sportsmanship to allow your opponent to change the rules to make his models more effective, wouldn't it also be good sportsmanship for your opponent to not expect you to do so?

If you're playing opponents who play only to win, find new opponents. I play to have a good time. even in a tournament. its all supposed to be about having a good time. its a freaking GAME.

You're making a very large assumption that wanting to play by the rules makes someone a 'win at all cost' player. They're not automatically the same thing.

that being said, flier, elevation rules do not apply. pilot wants to hit it, drop the ship till its a foot off the deck.

Where are the rules that allow you to change the elevation of your flier, or treat it as being anywhere other than where the model is actually sitting?

sportsmanship calls are completely speculative. I said in my opinion, I would've let him make the shot.

Yes, I was making an extreme assumption based on my understanding of the situation. I play by all of the rules as well, however, since this is a game that allows for the free thinking and interpretation of the rules, and where some very interesting game dynamics just cannot be predetermined, it would lead one to use a little levity in the situation.

Where is it written expressly that any flier has a predesignated height at any level? For that matter, where is it written as to what height a skimmer operates? your basing the argument on a completely arbitrary point. insert a little imagination here, and the machine could very well fly at a lower altitude. or sideways. or inverted. its possible, i've seem them do it. (former air force)

FWIW, i've been a judge at tournaments back in 3rd and 4th ed (former red shirt as well) and I can tell you first hand, that not everyone or everything fits in a box. there are always exceptions to the rules. ALWAYS. that being said, i'm not going to break out a protractor on a table and make a guy measure the precise angle of the model. if its contested, roll a die, accept the outcome, move on with the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:If you're playing opponents who play only to win, find new opponents. I play to have a good time. even in a tournament. its all supposed to be about having a good time. its a freaking GAME.

The problem I have with that statement is that it implies those that want to not make up rules as we go along aren't good sportsmen and don't play to have a good time.

I dislike that implication - because I also play to have a good time, even in a tournament. It is supposed to be about having a good time. But I like to play by the actual rules.
Just like paintball - I love playing paintball. If you get hit, you're out. How about I just ignore that I got hit and keep playing? It's just a game, right?
Just like chess - I enjoy playing chess. Pawns are pretty restricted in their movement. How about I move a pawn like a Queen? It's just a game, right?
Want me to keep going?

If you're not going to use the rules provided why not just have green plastic army men going "PEW PEW" at each other?

you're mistaking my desire to be flexible for the inability to understand the concept.

You are free to take any implication you like, but that was not the intent of my response, nor this one. (edit: re-reading, I made no such implication. I said IF your oponent is the player who plays ONLY to win, and not to enjoy the game. the implication there, being not a fun person to play games with)

and for the record, regardless of how big the rule big is, we ARE using little plastic army men going pew pew pew...

Rimmy - the rules tell you what height the flyer operates at, by requiring you to put it on the base GW designed for it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rimmy - the rules tell you what height the flyer operates at, by requiring you to put it on the base GW designed for it.

sure. but custom modeling is allowed so the weapon could be moved around.

all i'm saying is, if its that big of a deal, roll it out and let the dice decide.

Rimmy wrote:Where is it written expressly that any flier has a predesignated height at any level? ..

Same place it is written that you can't assume that your kneeling heavy weapon team are standing up when you want to draw LOS from them. And the place where it says that your Stormraven can't turn into a giant flaming bird and zip around the battlefield annihilating everything until the crew all pass out.

The rules establish what you can do. They are designed around the actual placement of the physical model. We don't need a rule stating that you can't change the flier's height from where the model is physically sitting. You need a rule that says that you can do that in order for it to be something that is possible within the game.

Idk...

I'm not sure I would allow it.
Functionally, the assault cannon looks more like a AA thing than a ground weapon.
Well, I guess it can shoot at MCs and garrisons.

Its not as if its the only weapon it has anyway. It still has, what, 2 meltas? And something like 4 missiles?

Rimmy wrote:sure. but custom modeling is allowed ....

Not by the rules, it isn't.

It's allowed by the players so long as you don't try to take advantage of it. And moving weapons around to improve their fire arcs is most certainly going to fit into most players' ideas of modelling for advantage.

insaniak wrote:

Rimmy wrote:sure. but custom modeling is allowed ....

Not by the rules, it isn't.

It's allowed by the players so long as you don't try to take advantage of it. And moving weapons around to improve their fire arcs is most certainly going to fit into most players' ideas of modelling for advantage.

then I reiterate, that by this player I would have allowed the weapon to be fired. YMMV.

insaniak wrote:
You're making a very large assumption that wanting to play by the rules makes someone a 'win at all cost' player. They're not automatically the same thing.

This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

Testify wrote:This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

I'm not really sure what point you think you're making here. You seem to be equating arguing that the rules are clear and should be followed in this situation with being a WAAC player, which is nonsense.

insaniak wrote:

Testify wrote:This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

I'm not really sure what point you think you're making here. You seem to be equating arguing that the rules are clear and should be followed in this situation with being a WAAC player, which is nonsense.

I think what he's trying to say, is that because someone does something small (tilt a stormraven 20 degrees or so) it should be considered in the same vein as having all orks hitting on a 2+.

Of course, I believe that I should be able to angle my stormraven down a bit, because its a freaking flier, and fliers don't always fly perfectly straight and level, but rather have fluid motion, and are locked in place only by the limitations of the game.

He is equating that to someone saying "Of course, I believe that I should be able to hit with my orks on a 2+, because they are awesome orks, and are good at fighting".

They are obviously different, because one is a small alteration of the model, and the models don't have strict rules on how they should be built / constructed, while the other is a set in stone rule. Yet, many WAAC players equate the two for some inane reason, and don't understand the difference between a modification of a model, which is (admit it) a grey area in the rules, and an outright cheat to gain an advantage.



I believe that GW overlooked the rules of firing arcs when designing fliers. The pictures of firing arcs all have ground vehicles, and use examples based on ground vehicles. If me altering my model to a 20 degree angle, which honestly looks cooler, fixes this, and the GW rules don't really say very clearly one way or the other (especially odd when you consider that the scratch build ravens people have from before the model was released are usable, and obviously don't have this limitation), then I don't see why I shouldn't do it, and nobody in this thread has done any kind of good job on pointing out just where the rules say you can't modify a GW model, when you can scratch build something and call it whatever you like and have it be perfectly legal.

Testify wrote:

insaniak wrote:
You're making a very large assumption that wanting to play by the rules makes someone a 'win at all cost' player. They're not automatically the same thing.

This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

There's a pretty significant difference between interpreting the close combat rules in such a way that people lose attacks to initiative changes, and making one particular model exempt to normal Line of Sight rules that all models follow.

In the context of this argument, from my perspective the people trying to ignore rules for just their 1 particular model with little rules support for doing so are the WAAC players.

Horst wrote:..., and nobody in this thread has done any kind of good job on pointing out just where the rules say you can't modify a GW model, ...

You will very, very rarely 'win' a rules argument with 'It doesn't say I can't.'... You need a rule that says that you can do something in order for it to be something that is allowed in the game.

...when you can scratch build something and call it whatever you like and have it be perfectly legal.

Can you provide the rule that says that scratchbuilt models are legal?

The rules are designed around GW's models. Scratchbuilds fall into the exact same rules grey area as conversions: The rules don't specifically address them, but players will generally allow them so long as they are not abusive.


Certainly it makes sense that fliers should be able to tilt forward as they hover. Just as it makes sense that models should be able to kneel down, stand up, or drop prone, depending on the situation. But these are things that simply aren'ta part of the current game rules... just as the fact that it makes sense that the battleship could take potshots at the other players, or that the car should move faster than the shoe or the thimble doesn't make those things that are a part of the game of Monopoly.

The game deals in abstractions. It has to, because our models don't actually move. Sometimes, that means that real-world logic takes a backseat to functional rules.

Insaniak's right, and so is everyone who's sadi it's all about abstractions. Sure, a flyer would, in reality, tilt and move to get the best firing angle, but in reality even orks wouldn't miss shots at the broad side of a Land Raider 2 inches (6ish feet?) in front of them, a tank shocking Wave Serpent would fly away with people impaled on the wingy-parts of the hull instead of them just dodging or running, and cover would prevent you from hitting me at all instead of blocking wounds.

You can never, ever apply real-world logic to this game, it just doesn't work. Everything is an abstraction. You can't have a functioning miniatures game that follows every bit of real-world logic because it would be way too complex and random. That's why we have rules that say what we can do, and anything they don't say we can do, we can't.

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Yes, we have said this 100 times... you have a 45 degree horizontal arc, which leaves an intentional blindspot for fliers and an intentional blindspot above most tanks which fliers can hide in.

It does not allow you to modify your model with a 45 degree arc and then claim and additional 45 degrees off that modified arc.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Quoting more to correct Horst's assertion; and I am not even sure if I am correcting or clarifying.

The 45* arc on the vertical when it matters; that is worded the same way as the 45* arc on the horizontal, so you only have a 22.5* in either direction(22.5 up, 22.5 Down).

Taking the Vertical arc rules into account, Angling a Flyer to tilt downward only winds up removing range from your weapons. Most flyers I have seen(Caveat for all following statements: I have not physically held an assembled Storm raven, let alone calculated the exact angles) already have a roughly 5* downward tilt, or at least their weapons do. The minimum range on a valk against a guardsman/Ork is 9.5"(8.75" to a Marine) from the Weapons. When you start angling the vehicle farther forward, you start removing the max rang targets from your arc of fire.

I just find it ironic that people say you are MFA with the storm raven pointed down cause I modeled mine before I even knew what MFA meant and just copied the way GW did it on their store pictures as I liked the way they set it up in the first place which is why I bought the model at all. Heck I even paint mostly the way they said it should look.

If copying the GW guys is wrong, then hey, I don't wanna be right.



This is the exact picture they have on their site for the GK storm raven. They also have one facing straight forwards. I'd imagine I can model it just like they show me and if they have 2 versions, I should be able to pick what I like. It just looked cooler to me when I assembled the damn thing.

I'm the first to admit I have essentially no artistic creativity. I do copy well and I can decide for myself if something looks cooler or not. When I got into this hobby at first, I was just used to copying Gundam robots like they posed on the boxes. I'm sorry if I'm not creative enough to come up with my own poses but I happen to buy toys that I like the box art for. It's how I got into this hobby in the first place. I probably played for a year or two before I even knew they talked about stuff on a forum somewhere. Got the codex and noticed how they were modeled to look awesome in "cinamatic style" so thats what I'd go for every time. If I'm at a disadvantage, I'm cool with it, it looks cooler to play with.

Horst - breaking a rule to gain an advantage is just as bad as breaking a rule to gain an advantage. It is still cheating by the basic rules of the game.

You may not like the rules, in which case you need to actually engage with your opponents and ask if this is ok.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Horst - breaking a rule to gain an advantage is just as bad as breaking a rule to gain an advantage. It is still cheating by the basic rules of the game.

You may not like the rules, in which case you need to actually engage with your opponents and ask if this is ok.

I"M NOT BREAKING A RULE. For the love of god, get that through your thick head. there is no rule about this, conversions are a grey area.

It is NOT the same as breaking a rule.

As others have pointed out, GW itself has pictures of stormravens modeled at angles... this isn't some kind of wacky far out thing I'm doing. I'm not mounting them under the wings. I'm slightly tilting a model, which reduces its max range, but instead gives me a smaller dead spot directly in front of it.

No matter how many times you claim its breaking a rule, you have yet to provide ONE modicum of evidence for that point.

Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Moderate your language, please.

We'd be obliged.

Thanks.

Wow, tons of comments on this issue...

Real life, no dorsal mounted weapon would have a short rang like that... What, is there melee with planes too? Real life, Guns would be mounted on the side and nose of the plane, or helicopter, and most likely have a tail gunner... the bottom of the aircraft might have a hatch too....

Bla bla bla, that is real life. In the gaming world, Attach a magnet on the base on a horizontal and a vertical. OR Get a big round magnet, OR get a big metal ball barring and magnetize a bowl for it to stick on.

Then spin it, tilt it, pivot it, and pose it.... Ta Da, That is how bases for the speeders and Copters are suppose to work. If someone really cares that much, and still complains, then they are probably not worth playing against ever again.

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:If someone really cares that much, and still complains, then they are probably not worth playing against ever again.

... Sigh.

Indeed.

GW could have made the model pivot. Hell, they used to HAVE rules for flying at different heights

They removed them, and havent revisited. Just that tells you their intentions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

P313 - I can fill in spaces I don't like with green stuff and mount some accessories "on a variety of places"

Bottom of P 312 - "so you can manipulate the components to get the perfect position as it dries. Once you're happy, support the miniature as it sets by holding the parts firmly in place."

P322 - all about conversions.

There you go, permissive.

Horst wrote:slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

If I mentioned the dead spot during a tournament and you objected, I'd call a TO over and abide by his ruling. If he gave it to you, fine.
If you've converted a model to give you an advantage (exactly what you did) I would probably mention it to a TO and live with the decision.

In friendly games I don't care that much. I'll point it out, but that would probably be it.

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

... Awesome. More insults.

Horst wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

Really man 4 posts after the mod asked nicely, couldn't you at least wait till the next page?

HoverBoy wrote:

Horst wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

Really man 4 posts after the mod asked nicely, couldn't you at least wait till the next page?

Why?

If the mods have a problem with the way I'm posting, they can PM me, and I will respect their request. Until such time though, don't presume to speak for them.

You know who get's hostile over rule arguments – WAAC players, don't you just hate those guys.

HoverBoy wrote:You know who get's hostile over rule arguments – WAAC players, don't you just hate those guys.

Trust me, you haven't seen me hostile.

Honestly I have a feeling if I was a TO I'd say just go with w/e the guy modeled it as.

Advantage - less dead zone in front

Disadvantage - reduced his max range and also made it so meltas and other shorter range weapons are closer to the hull.

Gain some, lose some. And as clearly defined in the book on the pages listed above, you can portray your models in different poses so comes with advantages and disadvantages.