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.

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:Our FLGS uses a rule which states that flyers can shoot as long as the edge of their base is further than 3'' from the unit it is firing at.

That makes sense and all, but unfortunately, that's not the rule. If you cannot draw LOS from the gun to the target along the described field of fire, you cannot shoot.

-cgmckenzie

Horst wrote: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?

No, I'm afraid I don't.

In both cases the nature of the model is that it is restricted in that way, it's not like someone is suddenly heaping this limitation on you (well they are kind of, but only because of your failure to observe it sooner), it has been there since the storm raven came into existence.

So the Assault Cannon isn't good for shooting at ground targets, okay, so use it to do something else then, rather than complain it's unfair that you aren't allowed to shoot through the hull of your vehicle, just like every other vehicle in the game isn't allowed to.

Drunkspleen wrote:

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".

You could always not use the vehicle in your army...

That's the way GW designed the rules and the way GW designed the unit, the fact that it can't be used exactly how you expect it to work is hardly grounds for ignoring these designs.

All Flyers suffer from this issue, and all Flyers get plenty of advantages to offset it.

Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

Akirakill wrote:Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

I meant they all have a somewhat limited vertical arc, it just happens to be worse in some cases.

Akirakill wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

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".

You could always not use the vehicle in your army...

That's the way GW designed the rules and the way GW designed the unit, the fact that it can't be used exactly how you expect it to work is hardly grounds for ignoring these designs.

All Flyers suffer from this issue, and all Flyers get plenty of advantages to offset it.

Necron fliers don't have that problem... the guns are under... got to be a Necron to think smart i guess?

Except they were stupid enough to mount guns on the bottom of almost ALL of their vehicles, meaning any little piece of terrain will block LOS. They were also too stupid to make the turret on the Anni barge actually rotate. Most models have issues in one form or another. Deal with it and move on.

So... I can tilt the base of my stormraven then so the gun can hit the ground, right?

I don't see any rule that says I have to use the base provided, unmodified.

Once you modify that base, it is no longer the same base as provided. The purpose of the base as provided is to 'balance' the game in one way or another, restricting x, enabling y. By changing that, you are modeling for advantage.

Things like adding scenery to the base and other such things really doesn't matter because it is purely aesthetic. Changing the angle of flight changes arcs of fire and LOS, potentially to and from the stormraven.

Play the model the way it is designed. It already is immune to melta, can move crazy fast across the board while still transporting a squad and a dreadnought, and has a solid arsenal to boot. Do you really need it to be stronger than that?

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Once you modify that base, it is no longer the same base as provided. The purpose of the base as provided is to 'balance' the game in one way or another, restricting x, enabling y. By changing that, you are modeling for advantage.

Things like adding scenery to the base and other such things really doesn't matter because it is purely aesthetic. Changing the angle of flight changes arcs of fire and LOS, potentially to and from the stormraven.

Play the model the way it is designed. It already is immune to melta, can move crazy fast across the board while still transporting a squad and a dreadnought, and has a solid arsenal to boot. Do you really need it to be stronger than that?

-cgmckenzie

lol, has a "solid arsenal"... you mean the one where one of its two primary weapons has a blind spot that prevents its use in 75% of its range? Yea, real solid.

Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one. I don't feel like using the normal base. No problem then, right?

Horst wrote:
Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one.

For models without bases...

Show me a rule that allows you to modify the model for personal advantage? permissive ruleset and all.

This is the same argument about telescoping bases to allow skimmers to be high one moment for unobstructed LOS and low later for cover. Nothing says you can.

Well... if I can't modify the base, can I take the turret off, and mount the assault cannons underneath the wings instead?

Horst wrote:lol, has a "solid arsenal"... you mean the one where one of its two primary weapons has a blind spot that prevents its use in 75% of its range? Yea, real solid.

Point me to a rule where it says models need to be on the base provided. It says if its modeled on an unusual base, I should "feel free" to mount it on an appropriate one. I don't feel like using the normal base. No problem then, right?

It is, after all, your plastic armymen. You may do to them anything you wish, as it is just as much your hobby as it is mine or anybodies.

But, do take a hard look at why you are changing your model. Intent is everything here. If you are changing it to make the model more exciting and dramatic, more power to you. Can't wait to see the final result. But, if your reasons for modification are all about how the model interacts within the game... That, in my opinion, is in bad form. And, while not explicitly forbid within the rules is, quite certainly, looked down upon within the community.

Pg 3 6th Edition BGB said
"Models and Base Sizes: The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases(which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."

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.

Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases

Old terminators and old ghazzy on 25mm rounds, ancient dreads on 50mm squares, gorka morka boys on kidney bean shaped bases. These are unusually modelled bases when compared to the current versions of each model now.

In these cases(which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

If you want to rebase the above models, use the base sizes from today. This is not forcing you to rebase your really old terminators, but if you wish to, please use the current base sizes. It is not an excuse for you to make stupid bases for your stormravens because you don't want to use the normal base. Scenic bases are one thing, purposefully adjusting the LOS of the model is wrong, however.

Your stormravens are not the majestic killing machines you want them to be against ground targets. This solid arsenal can be used against fliers with impunity because other fliers have skyfire. This made the storm raven better this edition.

-cgmckenzie

You're asking a model to do something it isn't meant to. With the new edition out and how long they've been planning it, it becomes obvious that this weapon mount was designed to be used against other fliers. If yo had asked this in 5th ed, before we knew about the flier rules, I would've said yeah, change it, that's a dumb design point. But now you're just trying to get an unintended advantage through modelling. Leave your anti-aircraft weapon in its anti-aircraft position. It's not meant for ground targets.

feth it, I'm just going to replace it with a lascannon. At least then I'll be able to use the machine spirit to hit a viable ground target, rather than have the turret be useless against everything besides air targets.

I think the spirit and actual wording of the rules clearly allows a 45 degree up and down arc, which would therefore restrict the 'raven's assault cannon to engaging targets to its front that lie over 11" from the muzzle (the muzzle lies about 8" from the ground but the hull of the raven would obstruct a precise 45 degree shot. While the hull and mounting do not allow a depression of 45 degrees, neither do many hull mounted weapons allow raising by 45 degrees (sponson lascannon, say). it seems unreasonable to me to restrict either due to the limitations of the model, just as it is unreasonable to allow dreadnoughts, say, to fire vertically just because their guns may be pointed so.

Direct quote from the rules:

'On some models it will be literally impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the modelis assembled [my emphasis] or because the gun has been glued in place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself cannon physically do that [my emphasis].'

It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

No one is saying that it can't. They are saying that when doing that depression the normal rules for LOS must still be applied. If drawing a 45 degree angle to a target takes the LOS from the barrel of the gun through the vehicles own hull then it cannot make that shot.

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:I think your opponent was a dick. I would understand if the Stormraven was hovering right on top of him, but not anyway else.
Our FLGS uses a rule which states that flyers can shoot as long as the edge of their base is further than 3'' from the unit it is firing at.

Because flyers are so underpowered, they really needed that boost....

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

We all agree it can do that... But that makes a blind spot of models which are within about 6-7" on the ground.

We are talking about people who want to shoot almost directly down at 90 degrees. And if they can change the axis of the storm raven 45 degrees and then that gives the guns an additional 45 degrees.

It is free to depress it all it likes up to 45 degrees, but it can't shoot through its own hull. The Raven doesn't tilt 45 degrees to fire it, the turret can depress/elevate the gun 45 degrees.

The top turret on the SR is intended to shoot at flyers IMO, not ground targets. That's why it's on top. The Ork burna-bomma has a similar turret, and i wouldn't claim that it gets to shoot rightn through the hull to shoot targets below it despite it being more likely than a SM vaping holes in his own vehicle.

The blitzabomma a rear facing big shoota that can't fire at the same target as the front guns. Should it be allowed to? No, because it's not mounted in a way that allows it.

It's like saying that the belly turret the Memphis Belle should be allowed to shoot at a plane directly above the cockpit. It can't, because there is a plane in the way... theirs.

The SR has ample other guns/missiles it can use on ground targets.

coredump wrote:Because flyers are so underpowered, they really needed that boost....

It is better than not being able to shoot models 16'' away. Flyers are gunfodder on the first turn anyway.

nkelsch wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:
It's pretty clear to me from the above that the 'raven can indeed depress its assault cannon by 45 degrees even though the design of the model itself prevents that.

We all agree it can do that... But that makes a blind spot of models which are within about 6-7" on the ground.

We are talking about people who want to shoot almost directly down at 90 degrees. And if they can change the axis of the storm raven 45 degrees and then that gives the guns an additional 45 degrees.

no, the blind spot is ~14" (just measured it).

This means my assault cannons have a range of 14"-24"

I don't see why I can't just model the raven angled downwards a bit. Looks like you could easily reduce that minimum range to ~6", without any serious modification.

No one is saying that it can't. They are saying that when doing that depression the normal rules for LOS must still be applied. If drawing a 45 degree angle to a target takes the LOS from the barrel of the gun through the vehicles own hull then it cannot make that shot

The OP was saying he had been prevented from firing by his opponent claiming he had to use the 'true' depression.

If you read what I was saying, it was that the rules specifically countered that.

And also that I had allowed for the hull getting in the way. hence it's actually around 11" from the muzle to the ground that's permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

no, the blind spot is ~14"

I've just measured it myself again from the muzzle.

It's about 12" (actually a bit less)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or about 9" from the front of the base.

(edited copying error, sorry)

So with all this 45 degree angle stuff who's going to start taking a protractor to their games along with templates and dice?

So with all this 45 degree angle stuff who's going to start taking a protractor to their games along with templates and dice?

Well you could just use a quick Pythagororas instead.

But you're right. in any normal situation, people are unlikely to quibble what the precise area of the blind spot is. But lots of vehicles will use the 45 degree rule from time to time so maybe you should take your protractor just in case.

Permissive rule set?
Ok.
You get a 45 degree swivel on vehicle weapons.
If you're claiming you can aim upwards 45 degrees, then you cannot draw line of sight to anything shorter than the barrel.

You couldn't fire a battle cannon at an assault marine.
You couldn't fire a sponson at a pathfinder.

If 45 degree vertical is vertical axis, then it is split between up and down; just like the 45 degree horizontal is split between 22.5 degrees right and left, as shown in the diagram.

While this would mean that the assault cannons could pretty much never fire, it would also mean that a flier cannot be hit at all if you're within about a foot and a half of the shooter.


I'm personally looking forward to having my assault marines immune to battle cannons, I guess that's a fair trade off for losing 4 S6 shots

-Matt

The issue at hand here, but wasn't explained at all clearly until page two, is that the assault cannon is on TOP of the SR and therefore would have to shoot through itself.
Look at this picture:


It would have to be shooting through the hull in order to target anything within ~12".

Testify wrote:The issue at hand here, but wasn't explained at all clearly until page two, is that the assault cannon is on TOP of the SR and therefore would have to shoot through itself.
Look at this picture:


It would have to be shooting through the hull in order to target anything within ~12".

So? It has a limited vertical angle of fire, that's how it has been designed. I fail to see why it is suddenly unfair that a Space Marine vehicle which is tough and quite heavily armed has to worry about its own positioning to fire at some ground units.

I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

You know how it is... When something new comes out, people like to try an find flaws to make is less useful.

DaKKaLAnce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm surprised it's taken this long to hit YMDC. It's not like this rule changed from 5th to 6th

I guess its just easier to exploit the blind spot now.

You know how it is... When something new comes out, people like to try an find flaws to make is less useful.

My point is that the blind spot has always been there. It's nothing new.