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.

The only weapon that can fire outside the defined vehicle weapon arcs are turret weapons, right?

I ask because the modelling on the Dark Eldar Raiders and Ravager side guns look as if they get a 180 degree arc and there has been some confusion at tournaments with Raiders moving up sideways across the board and shooting broadside and Ravagers taking rear shots.

Pintle mounted weapons can also be fired in that manner. As the weapons are modeled on stands with a visible crew people tend to treat them as such. By RAW it doesn't say anything about how they are mounted, turret, sponson, fixed point, etc so people generally play WYSISWG.

Orion

The rules simply state that you determine line of sight from where the weapon is mounted. Raider weapons are mounted in such a way that a clear line of sight can be drawn in almost any direction (except perhaps directly backwards).

I don't know exactly why people are flying their Raiders sideways up the board since they don't block line of sight, but I don't think they're breaking any rules firing "broadside" like that.

OK, so if I cut off the tail fin and remount the weapon up there on a turret looking mount I can claim 360 degree arc of fire?

Basically I've already done the conversion and it looks in line with the Talos and Jetbike modelling, really ties the army together. The downside is I've lost 4" of range so I've been looking for a ruling on arcs of fire. I can always pivot the tank in the firing phase to present the rear if I can swivel the gun 180.

As a side note, moving broadside is a way to create some long los blosking terrain if they shoot you down.

Remember, you can only pivot in the firing phase if you did not move the vehicle in the movement phase. If you move the vehicle, you must end facing the direction you wish to be facing.

This was one of the modifications done to prevent, among other things, the old Rhino tactic of moving the vehicle ending with rear facing opponent, disembarking the troops, then pivoting the Rhino back with front armor facing the enemy.

I'm at work so don't have access to my BGB, but I am 100% certain of this.

Posted By medic_4077 on 10/23/2007 7:43 AM

OK, so if I cut off the tail fin and remount the weapon up there on a turret looking mount I can claim 360 degree arc of fire?

Basically I've already done the conversion and it looks in line with the Talos and Jetbike modelling, really ties the army together. The downside is I've lost 4" of range so I've been looking for a ruling on arcs of fire. I can always pivot the tank in the firing phase to present the rear if I can swivel the gun 180.

As a side note, moving broadside is a way to create some long los blosking terrain if they shoot you down.

Yep see my "rule #1" in my sig. You can do all sorts of nasty tricks to gain advantages in the game through modeling.

You can use epic sized Whirlwind models to hide behind pretty much anything, you can build Daemon princes with giant pirate hats to block line of sight to your Land Raiders behind. You can build incredibly long Raiders, deploy them sideways and then pivot them in the first movement phase to gain ridiculous amounts of free movement.

But just because you can do something, does it mean you should? Its a choice each person has to make for themselves based on how badly they want to win a game of toy soldiers.

 

The rules on firing arcs are clearly unclear: unless the weapon is in a turret, sponson or defined as "fixed" (which no weapons in the game are besides the Earthshaker cannon on a Basilisk shown in the 'fixed' weapon fire arc diagram) then you simply draw line of sight from the weapon mount to your target. If you can successfully do so, then the weapon may see and shoot its target.

 

As for moving Raiders broadside to create terrain when they're shot down, I do know that's a useful tactic but it is important to remember that once shot down the Riader ohly blocks line of sight as the profile of the model (WYSIWYG) and line of sight can be drawn ofver the top of it as normal.

 

"You can use epic sized Whirlwind models to hide behind pretty much anything, you can build Daemon princes with giant pirate hats to block line of sight to your Land Raiders behind. You can build incredibly long Raiders, deploy them sideways and then pivot them in the first movement phase to gain ridiculous amounts of free movement."

I know you are being coy, and the RAW allows for this sort of thing, but I cannot believe that you would promote/advocate/brag about these sort of tactics.  Seriously, how many games do you think you would play getting away with any of that bull*gak*e?  In a tourney, besides getting hammered on sportsmanship, if any of this helped you win the game, you would be lucky to get out of there unharmed.  I can't even see a friendly casual game player tolerating this kind of "spirit of the game" violation.  While I enjoy creative modeling, doing it to gain advantages, especially the lengthening of vehicles to gain more range is pathetic.  I am typing this is a calm and rational "voice", so don't get all bent, but that is nothing to be proud of.  Play the game.  Don't ruin it.  If you have to model your raider to gain an unfair advantage over other raiders, just play with yourself in your garage, you will win every game!

Where do you get the impression that he's promoting and bragging about 2'-long Rhinos etc? He did say

Dorn, Yak just said the same thing you did; he was just more neutral in the way he expressed it.

I modeled 2 MLRS basilisks, from the space marine whirwind on a chimera for my "enclosed' basilisks, because they dont have an enclosed model.

They are WAY better becuase the minimum range loses 6 inches or more with the rockets on the back of the tank, and the missiles are turreted, instead of fixed. 2 clear advantages, but I don't regret it because I had to at least pay some points. I have wondered about the legality...

"Yep see my "rule #1" in my sig. You can do all sorts of nasty tricks to gain advantages in the game through modeling."

I know he softened it with the "...but just because you can do something...", but it is his #1 rule.  The impression/promotion is clearly defined in his signature, tegues. 

He plays at a highly competitive level, I presume the crowd he plays against regularly does also, and his "#1 rule" no doubt is a product of that environment.  Whether he did it as a joke or meant to teach a lesson to some arseclown he ran into one day, I don't know, and I am not knocking the guy for doing it, I'm sure he has his reasons.  All I'm saying is that promoting that kind of modeling to gain an advantage is bad form to say the least.  How you, Mannahnin, or anyone else can argue against that is beyond me.  Unless you are saying that you have no problem with that sort of tactic, and you are entitled to say it, but don't tell me it doesn't violate the spirit of the game.  At least give me that.

BTW~ most of my ire was directed at the guy looking for the advantage with the raider.

well dornfist must be a rich little white boy because he lives on long island and plays 40k...

howabout we throw around some more assumptions that have no basis in reality?

my pee is brown because i like toyotas, and the tv is on because of lamp. yes, i said it. lamp.

dornsfist, yak's post is saying is at is is, pure and simple. He listed a number of examples of things that are legal and advantageous, all of which are true, and then he stated that whether you want to (ab)use it or not is a call for the individual gamer to make. I certainly didn't come away from it feeling like yak wanted me to go home and convert a dozen foot-long Rhinos.

If you want to discourage the practice, then argue against the practice. I don't see what is gained by trying to police other poster's comments on the basis that someone else may be influenced by them.

The reason it is my "rule #1" is simply because of the amount of times we've been discussing rules here in YMTC when someone's response is:

"yeah, but that means I could make my models XXX, so clearly that rule must be wrong."


To which I always have to reply: "yes, the rules allow to gain advantages through modeling, but that doesn't mean XXX is not a valid rule."


I got tired of typing the same thing over and over again, so I just made it a "rule" in my sig.


I have never modeled anything in 40K to gain an advantage (that I can think of).

Hey guys. I finished my Baneblade model the other day. I put the two side sponsons on the front space allocated for them for 1 simple reason, and that is to give me a 2" advantage, over somebody who puts theirs at the back so they look 'cool'.

Is this corn-ball? Or is it going with Yak's call? I think if you model your figs to your Adv. without being a Corn-meister....go for it!!

"Spirit of the game " really does apply when playing with FRIENDS. I think anyway.

If the baneblade provides forward/rearward slots for the sponsons, and they even discuss it in apocolpyse, then how is it illegal or unsportsmanlike?

In fact, if I was ever to purchase a landraider, I would place the sponson weapons in the forward most side door for the simple reason that it makes sense to me: If YOU were in an armoured personnel carrier, would YOU use the side exits knowing there was a heavy weapon blasting past you?
Makes sense that the guns would be forward, exit rearward. But maybe thats just me.

Multi-quote function RULES!

akira5665 wrote:Is this corn-ball? Or is it going with Yak's call? I think if you model your figs to your Adv. without being a Corn-meister....

I believe the word you're searching for is "cheese-meister..."

Laserbait wrote:If YOU were in an armoured personnel carrier, would YOU use the side exits knowing there was a heavy weapon blasting past you?

The only time MY guys use the side exit is when the Land Raider's about to blow up anyway, so it's a moot point.

True enough I guess PP, but aesthethically, to me it looks better with them forward of the hatch.

Marines may be tough as nails, but even THEY shy away from taking a friedly Las to the head
LOL

But if they're trying to get into assault, wouldn't they want to be closer to the enemy?

Of course. Which is why they wouldn't be using the side doors most of the time anyway...

If they're trying to assault an enemy in front of the vehicle, they'd be using the front assault ramp instead of the side doors.

If they're assaulting an enemy to the side of the vehicle, it doesn't much matter which hatch the side door is mounted in.

Why are people measuring range from their weapons? Range is measured from the main hull/body of the vehicle - the actual modeled location is irrelevant in regards to range. Where and how a weapon is modeled only affects line of sight.

B

Centurian99 wrote:Why are people measuring range from their weapons? Range is measured from the main hull/body of the vehicle - the actual modeled location is irrelevant in regards to range. Where and how a weapon is modeled only affects line of sight.

Because of the Main Rulebook FAQ which went and muddied a perfectly clear rule, that's why

Ghaz wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Why are people measuring range from their weapons? Range is measured from the main hull/body of the vehicle - the actual modeled location is irrelevant in regards to range. Where and how a weapon is modeled only affects line of sight.

Because of the Main Rulebook FAQ which went and muddied a perfectly clear rule, that's why

I'm with you Ghaz. That was a bad, bad, bad ruling.

I suppose this argument would follow in the same vein as modelling the grabba claws or wreckin balls on your new ork battle wagons to be extending far, far beyond the extent of the vehicle itself

As the leaked rules have been written to allow them to hit/grab thing's within 2 inches of the claw/ball rather than the vehicle. If you have to model the claw/wreckin ball yourself, why wouldn't you model it with a long grabba/wreckin ball extension out the front? I think this one is a doozy, in terms of defining cheese.

How far past the front of the vehicle does the claw/wreckin ball constitute interesting modelling?

Hehe, considering the rules for skimmers I think a battle wagon with the odd 12 inch grabba claw extension isn't so bad

Orky vehicles pose the greatest potential for what people call "abuse" of the modelling freedom, although I have never had a problem with any conversion I have ever come across. I hate the current Ork trukks so I scratch-build mine to look like they could actually carry 10 Boyz. Same wrt Buggies, Battlewagons, etc.

Even though the Imperial vehicles are all supposedly "STC" and conversion/deviation is strictly prohibited by the Adeptus Mechanicus- that is all fluff. But also- fluffwise, certainly conversions would be made under battlefield conditions if necessary. I say convert away IMHO, and if you do a good job and it doesn't seem to blatantly give an advantage (my subjectivity) then I would never have a problem with it.

Edit: As an example, I am currently converting a Terminus Land Raider so that all the LCs can actually fire instead of being blocked by other LCs. It is closer to how I thought it should have been modelled, but I understand why GW probably modelled theirs the way they did (simplicity of bits). It doesn't give any advantage beyond what the rules for the vehicle say it can do, it just looks more plausible.

Ghaz wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Why are people measuring range from their weapons? Range is measured from the main hull/body of the vehicle - the actual modeled location is irrelevant in regards to range. Where and how a weapon is modeled only affects line of sight.

Because of the Main Rulebook FAQ which went and muddied a perfectly clear rule, that's why

Thanks, Ghaz. I totally forgot about that one.