Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So this came up in a game recently, and we weren't sure how to correctly handle it.

I had an Eldar warlock in b2b with a Vendetta (from assaulting in the previous turn). The IG player did not move the vendetta away from the warlock (since the squad inside was holding an objective right there). Now in the shooting phase the vendetta tried to shoot its three lascannons at the warlock. It didn't seem to me that the lascannons should've been able to fire on him since he was outside of the 45 degree arc (in a vertical sense). The IG player said that the rules say you use common sense to determine where a vehicle's guns could actually aim, and since a skimmer could easily angle down to hit the warlock he is able to fire. To continue on with the game we D6'd it and I lost, but I wanted to just check on here to see what Dakka thought.

I've attached a simple 'shopped photo to illustrate what I'm asking.


And a thank you to eliotblacknight for having a side-on photo of the vendetta in the gallery that I could use to illustrate my question!

Most of the players I've seen (and on my own vendetta as well), angle the skimmer down a bit to help mitigate this, but you are correct. The rule says that the weapon has an arc from its mounting point, not that the vehicle itself gets to rotate.

Well, if you want a real life justifications...

Vendettas are VToL aircraft, as such it could just fly lower (I mean, you were assaulting a thing flying above three story buildings)

For rules, the base is ignored for shooting a skimmers weapons. Because the only reason he couldn't hit you is because of the base I'd say you ignore the base and do the shooting.

wizard12 wrote:Well, if you want a real life justifications...

Vendettas are VToL aircraft, as such it could just fly lower (I mean, you were assaulting a thing flying above three story buildings)

For rules, the base is ignored for shooting a skimmers weapons. Because the only reason he couldn't hit you is because of the base I'd say you ignore the base and do the shooting.

Then why have the 45 degree restriction at all? 40k is a 3D game, and as such we play the models how they exist on the table.

I disagree with everything wizard12 wrote, and agree with everything willy wrote.

Wizard, real life justifications are not useful things in working out how a rule works (and are against the Tenets of YMDC), though they are useful for rationalizing a rule AFTER you figure out how it actually works.

Skimmer bases are definitely not disregarded for LOS purposes. You cannot alter a model's height during the game. A high base has the disadvantage of being harder to get cover, and (usually) the advantage of superior LOS/shooting vantages.

Hm, its just that I thought that way due to this section in the rule book;

As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmers hull, with the exception of the vehicle's weapons, access points and fire points, which work as normal. The skimmers base is effectively ignored, except when assaulting a skimmer, in which case models may move into base contact with the vehicles hull, it's base or both.

Emphasis my own.

That's specifically for measuring distances, not for determining LoS. They are related processes in most cases, as you need both range and LoS to shoot at a vehicle, but they are distinct.

The base is ignored for purposes of measuring distance to and from the skimmer. Not for purposes of LOS.

Yeah, the Vendetta should not have been able to fire its lascannons at the target right below its hull. That's a caveat to 40K...You have to take the advantages of a large, tall flying base (as previously stated - LOS to prettymuch anything across the table) along with the disadvantages (no close-range shooting).

Thanks for clarification everyone! Hopefully I can show this to him and get him to agree.

sarukai wrote:Thanks for clarification everyone! Hopefully I can show this to him and get him to agree.

Good luck. Many people simply do not accept evidence that contradicts their already-held concepts.

P 59, Para 6. of BRB

*PARAPHRASED* about firing at elevated targets* [weapon gets 45 degree verticle swivel, even if the model cannot physically do that.]

I usually treat shots below straight at the level with the weapon the same way.

What sucks about this is that the IG dex dosen't say the lascans are hull mounted so a WAAC player can model them on turrets and gain a 360 fire ark due to the, if it looks like it can do it it can do it rule.

Modeling For Advantage can be a tricky thing to police. Most turret conversions are at best only 360 degrees, though, not 129,600 degrees.

Well i mount my center lasscans on turrets but allways treat them as hull mounted even when i'm not asked to. I just did it for the looks.
I was going for this look:

Nice! Have you posted any pics, приятел?

Липсата на качествена камера ме спира

HoverBoy wrote:Липсата на качествена камера ме спира

Even a poor quality cell phone photo is acceptable.
It can always be touched up!

So it's too high to shoot, but low enough to assault? That sounds like having your cake and eating it.

The game simply gives you mechanics to assault the vehicle because if it were not able to be assaulted it would be unbalanced.

If you absolutely need fluff to represent it, think of the guys as having better shots at the propulsion system or somesuch.

HoverBoy wrote:Липсата на качествена камера ме спира

That's a bummer. Even a really basic cheap digital camera nowdays usually has a Macro setting, although as TW said, even cell phone photos can be pretty good. Posting pics on Dakka, of course, is easier since we do our own hosting so you don't have to go out and get an imageshack account or anything.

TBH my modelling isn't really all that good, thats why i barely ever paint stuff so i can touch up later.

Fair enough. Mine was pretty cruddy when I started out, and isn't all that great now.

Showing your stuff to other people does give you a chance to get some feedback and pick up easy techniques to improve, though. That tutorial on pinning that's been getting a bunch of comments in the P&M tutorials forum the last couple of days is a good one.

Firstly, the valk in the picture has it's stand on backwards - they're supposed to be angled slightly down, not angled slightly up.

Secondly, the rulebook does tell us to assume a 45 degree angle. (if the weapon can move more then more is okay). The vendetta could not shoot the warlock.

Ulver wrote:So it's too high to shoot, but low enough to assault? That sounds like having your cake and eating it.

Likewise for the opposite side of the argument.

Except this side has rules to back it up. It might not make sense - and it wouldn't be the only rule that doesn't - but it's how the game works.

On a related topic, do people take the statement on page 59, "can swivel vertically roughly by 45 degrees", to mean that it's a 45 degree vertical arc or that it can swivel 45 degrees up and 45 degrees down from the modeled position (90 degree total arc)?

I've read it as a 45 degree total arc, but I can see how the sentence is ambiguous.

The context suggests that they were describing 45 degrees of elevation. 22.5 degrees of elevation isn't very useful.

Scott-S6 wrote:The context suggests that they were describing 45 degrees of elevation. 22.5 degrees of elevation isn't very useful.

yes but if its a 45' elevation (rather then 22.5') that means they can't aim down ... which is a lot worse.

Hmm so if i angle my vendetta's nose 45' forward i get to still shoot at targets that aren't compleetly above it and at things that are directly under it.
Sometimes i scare myself...