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.

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!