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.

Idk...

I'm not sure I would allow it.
Functionally, the assault cannon looks more like a AA thing than a ground weapon.
Well, I guess it can shoot at MCs and garrisons.

Its not as if its the only weapon it has anyway. It still has, what, 2 meltas? And something like 4 missiles?

Rimmy wrote:sure. but custom modeling is allowed ....

Not by the rules, it isn't.

It's allowed by the players so long as you don't try to take advantage of it. And moving weapons around to improve their fire arcs is most certainly going to fit into most players' ideas of modelling for advantage.

insaniak wrote:

Rimmy wrote:sure. but custom modeling is allowed ....

Not by the rules, it isn't.

It's allowed by the players so long as you don't try to take advantage of it. And moving weapons around to improve their fire arcs is most certainly going to fit into most players' ideas of modelling for advantage.

then I reiterate, that by this player I would have allowed the weapon to be fired. YMMV.

insaniak wrote:
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.

This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

Testify wrote:This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

I'm not really sure what point you think you're making here. You seem to be equating arguing that the rules are clear and should be followed in this situation with being a WAAC player, which is nonsense.

insaniak wrote:

Testify wrote:This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

I'm not really sure what point you think you're making here. You seem to be equating arguing that the rules are clear and should be followed in this situation with being a WAAC player, which is nonsense.

I think what he's trying to say, is that because someone does something small (tilt a stormraven 20 degrees or so) it should be considered in the same vein as having all orks hitting on a 2+.

Of course, I believe that I should be able to angle my stormraven down a bit, because its a freaking flier, and fliers don't always fly perfectly straight and level, but rather have fluid motion, and are locked in place only by the limitations of the game.

He is equating that to someone saying "Of course, I believe that I should be able to hit with my orks on a 2+, because they are awesome orks, and are good at fighting".

They are obviously different, because one is a small alteration of the model, and the models don't have strict rules on how they should be built / constructed, while the other is a set in stone rule. Yet, many WAAC players equate the two for some inane reason, and don't understand the difference between a modification of a model, which is (admit it) a grey area in the rules, and an outright cheat to gain an advantage.



I believe that GW overlooked the rules of firing arcs when designing fliers. The pictures of firing arcs all have ground vehicles, and use examples based on ground vehicles. If me altering my model to a 20 degree angle, which honestly looks cooler, fixes this, and the GW rules don't really say very clearly one way or the other (especially odd when you consider that the scratch build ravens people have from before the model was released are usable, and obviously don't have this limitation), then I don't see why I shouldn't do it, and nobody in this thread has done any kind of good job on pointing out just where the rules say you can't modify a GW model, when you can scratch build something and call it whatever you like and have it be perfectly legal.

Testify wrote:

insaniak wrote:
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.

This is true, WAAC attitude is VERY subjective.
However, the attitudes of some posters very much looks like WAAC to many people.
It's worth noting that "I'm just following the rules you wouldn't let me roll 2s to hit for my orks" etc etc is the first line of defence for many WAAC players.

It's the exact same thing that people who think you lose your attacks if the necron dude dies, resetting your initiative. "Well it's the rules".

There's a pretty significant difference between interpreting the close combat rules in such a way that people lose attacks to initiative changes, and making one particular model exempt to normal Line of Sight rules that all models follow.

In the context of this argument, from my perspective the people trying to ignore rules for just their 1 particular model with little rules support for doing so are the WAAC players.

Horst wrote:..., and nobody in this thread has done any kind of good job on pointing out just where the rules say you can't modify a GW model, ...

You will very, very rarely 'win' a rules argument with 'It doesn't say I can't.'... You need a rule that says that you can do something in order for it to be something that is allowed in the game.

...when you can scratch build something and call it whatever you like and have it be perfectly legal.

Can you provide the rule that says that scratchbuilt models are legal?

The rules are designed around GW's models. Scratchbuilds fall into the exact same rules grey area as conversions: The rules don't specifically address them, but players will generally allow them so long as they are not abusive.


Certainly it makes sense that fliers should be able to tilt forward as they hover. Just as it makes sense that models should be able to kneel down, stand up, or drop prone, depending on the situation. But these are things that simply aren'ta part of the current game rules... just as the fact that it makes sense that the battleship could take potshots at the other players, or that the car should move faster than the shoe or the thimble doesn't make those things that are a part of the game of Monopoly.

The game deals in abstractions. It has to, because our models don't actually move. Sometimes, that means that real-world logic takes a backseat to functional rules.

Insaniak's right, and so is everyone who's sadi it's all about abstractions. Sure, a flyer would, in reality, tilt and move to get the best firing angle, but in reality even orks wouldn't miss shots at the broad side of a Land Raider 2 inches (6ish feet?) in front of them, a tank shocking Wave Serpent would fly away with people impaled on the wingy-parts of the hull instead of them just dodging or running, and cover would prevent you from hitting me at all instead of blocking wounds.

You can never, ever apply real-world logic to this game, it just doesn't work. Everything is an abstraction. You can't have a functioning miniatures game that follows every bit of real-world logic because it would be way too complex and random. That's why we have rules that say what we can do, and anything they don't say we can do, we can't.

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Yes, we have said this 100 times... you have a 45 degree horizontal arc, which leaves an intentional blindspot for fliers and an intentional blindspot above most tanks which fliers can hide in.

It does not allow you to modify your model with a 45 degree arc and then claim and additional 45 degrees off that modified arc.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Horst wrote:There IS a rule saying the gun can depress 45" when elevation is an issue, under the vehicle firing arcs section of the rules. Not sure if that applies to fliers though.

Probably does, since its still a vehicle.

Quoting more to correct Horst's assertion; and I am not even sure if I am correcting or clarifying.

The 45* arc on the vertical when it matters; that is worded the same way as the 45* arc on the horizontal, so you only have a 22.5* in either direction(22.5 up, 22.5 Down).

Taking the Vertical arc rules into account, Angling a Flyer to tilt downward only winds up removing range from your weapons. Most flyers I have seen(Caveat for all following statements: I have not physically held an assembled Storm raven, let alone calculated the exact angles) already have a roughly 5* downward tilt, or at least their weapons do. The minimum range on a valk against a guardsman/Ork is 9.5"(8.75" to a Marine) from the Weapons. When you start angling the vehicle farther forward, you start removing the max rang targets from your arc of fire.

I just find it ironic that people say you are MFA with the storm raven pointed down cause I modeled mine before I even knew what MFA meant and just copied the way GW did it on their store pictures as I liked the way they set it up in the first place which is why I bought the model at all. Heck I even paint mostly the way they said it should look.

If copying the GW guys is wrong, then hey, I don't wanna be right.



This is the exact picture they have on their site for the GK storm raven. They also have one facing straight forwards. I'd imagine I can model it just like they show me and if they have 2 versions, I should be able to pick what I like. It just looked cooler to me when I assembled the damn thing.

I'm the first to admit I have essentially no artistic creativity. I do copy well and I can decide for myself if something looks cooler or not. When I got into this hobby at first, I was just used to copying Gundam robots like they posed on the boxes. I'm sorry if I'm not creative enough to come up with my own poses but I happen to buy toys that I like the box art for. It's how I got into this hobby in the first place. I probably played for a year or two before I even knew they talked about stuff on a forum somewhere. Got the codex and noticed how they were modeled to look awesome in "cinamatic style" so thats what I'd go for every time. If I'm at a disadvantage, I'm cool with it, it looks cooler to play with.

Horst - breaking a rule to gain an advantage is just as bad as breaking a rule to gain an advantage. It is still cheating by the basic rules of the game.

You may not like the rules, in which case you need to actually engage with your opponents and ask if this is ok.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Horst - breaking a rule to gain an advantage is just as bad as breaking a rule to gain an advantage. It is still cheating by the basic rules of the game.

You may not like the rules, in which case you need to actually engage with your opponents and ask if this is ok.

I"M NOT BREAKING A RULE. For the love of god, get that through your thick head. there is no rule about this, conversions are a grey area.

It is NOT the same as breaking a rule.

As others have pointed out, GW itself has pictures of stormravens modeled at angles... this isn't some kind of wacky far out thing I'm doing. I'm not mounting them under the wings. I'm slightly tilting a model, which reduces its max range, but instead gives me a smaller dead spot directly in front of it.

No matter how many times you claim its breaking a rule, you have yet to provide ONE modicum of evidence for that point.

Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Moderate your language, please.

We'd be obliged.

Thanks.

Wow, tons of comments on this issue...

Real life, no dorsal mounted weapon would have a short rang like that... What, is there melee with planes too? Real life, Guns would be mounted on the side and nose of the plane, or helicopter, and most likely have a tail gunner... the bottom of the aircraft might have a hatch too....

Bla bla bla, that is real life. In the gaming world, Attach a magnet on the base on a horizontal and a vertical. OR Get a big round magnet, OR get a big metal ball barring and magnetize a bowl for it to stick on.

Then spin it, tilt it, pivot it, and pose it.... Ta Da, That is how bases for the speeders and Copters are suppose to work. If someone really cares that much, and still complains, then they are probably not worth playing against ever again.

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:If someone really cares that much, and still complains, then they are probably not worth playing against ever again.

... Sigh.

Indeed.

GW could have made the model pivot. Hell, they used to HAVE rules for flying at different heights

They removed them, and havent revisited. Just that tells you their intentions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

P313 - I can fill in spaces I don't like with green stuff and mount some accessories "on a variety of places"

Bottom of P 312 - "so you can manipulate the components to get the perfect position as it dries. Once you're happy, support the miniature as it sets by holding the parts firmly in place."

P322 - all about conversions.

There you go, permissive.

Horst wrote:slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

If I mentioned the dead spot during a tournament and you objected, I'd call a TO over and abide by his ruling. If he gave it to you, fine.
If you've converted a model to give you an advantage (exactly what you did) I would probably mention it to a TO and live with the decision.

In friendly games I don't care that much. I'll point it out, but that would probably be it.

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

... Awesome. More insults.

Horst wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

Really man 4 posts after the mod asked nicely, couldn't you at least wait till the next page?

HoverBoy wrote:

Horst wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Reported. Moderate your language, please

Conversions are NOT a grey area. This is a permissive ruleset - show permission to convert you are model. You cant? Tough, then you cant without breaking the rules of the game.

You are the definition of a WAAC gamer.

slight conversion that changes a model's use slightly, in a way that most people probably wouldn't have questioned in the first place (I've played dozens of games in the past year with this model, nobody has ever before called me out on the dead spot of the raven, because most people understand its a freaking dumb rule)? CALL HIM OUT ON IT, REFUSE TO PLAY, CALL TO's OVER!

I'm actually glad of this. My stormraven is now a litmus test for idiocy. If you complain, I want nothing to do with you anyway.

Really man 4 posts after the mod asked nicely, couldn't you at least wait till the next page?

Why?

If the mods have a problem with the way I'm posting, they can PM me, and I will respect their request. Until such time though, don't presume to speak for them.

You know who get's hostile over rule arguments – WAAC players, don't you just hate those guys.

HoverBoy wrote:You know who get's hostile over rule arguments – WAAC players, don't you just hate those guys.

Trust me, you haven't seen me hostile.

Honestly I have a feeling if I was a TO I'd say just go with w/e the guy modeled it as.

Advantage - less dead zone in front

Disadvantage - reduced his max range and also made it so meltas and other shorter range weapons are closer to the hull.

Gain some, lose some. And as clearly defined in the book on the pages listed above, you can portray your models in different poses so comes with advantages and disadvantages.

I love how people automatically assume, that just because someone argues strict RAW in a forum where you discuss strict RAW (unless you specify that you are talking HYWPI), the people actually play this way in real life AND are WAAC players. If I were to refuse to let you move a pawn backwards in chess, would that make me a WAAC player?

Happyjew wrote:I love how people automatically assume, that just because someone argues strict RAW in a forum where you discuss strict RAW (unless you specify that you are talking HYWPI), the people actually play this way in real life AND are WAAC players. If I were to refuse to let you move a pawn backwards in chess, would that make me a WAAC player?

As sudojoe has pointed out, the rules clearly allow me to position my models any way I want on their bases.

They are enforcing rules that don't exist. That makes them WAAC power gamers.