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.

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.