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.

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!"