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.

Some questions:

1) is the base-hole for that flyer in the stock configuration? It looks like the stem is at an angle compared to the nose of the bird.

2) is the flyer base arcing towards the nose or in any other direction?

Most flyers that I have seen, along with a correctly oriented stem, will have a natural tilt forward of 30-45 degrees; making it so that most weapons can be fired straight forward, a little bit up, and down past about 6" from the base(depending on height of the target model.

Also to note: the gun on that model in the picture does not wind up with a minimum range of 20", it can hit most tanks within 7" of itself.

Oh, and if you are measuring the range from the base of the flyer; you are doing that wrong: you measure vehicle weapon ranges from the tip of the barrel.

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure how the Storm Talon is but I know my Dakkajets can be "flying" upward or downward depending on which way you turn the flyer base. Considering that I can change my firing arc of my jet purely with how I put my flyer on the removable base and how far deep I push the flyer stand into the hull of the jet sorta makes the firing arch for vertical shooting seem irrelevant. The RAW is clear but its silly to think a flyer (especially one that can hover) is unable to pitch forward or back to shoot at aerial or ground targets. Its not like a Land Raider that would need to pop a wheelie or ski to shoot a flyer right in front of it with its sponson mounted lascannon. 40k in general isn't very good at vertical gameplay when a jet is flying at the same height as an Imperial Knight.

I think maneuverability is a major factor in the >45 degree arc debate. It's ridiculous to think that these high-tech fighter craft (and even the larger fliers) would be incapable to pitching and banking in order to line up a shot. The models we use are static, the craft they are representing are not.

 andywalker07 wrote:
Also again I ask, where does it say that the starting point for the 45° is -22.5° that's an assumption. Likewise assuming that the the horizontal 45° starts at left 22.5° and ends right 22.5° means a forward facing weapon side mounted on the hull only has 22.5° arc as the other half would be firing into its own hull.
Also refusing to acknowledge the broken melta scenario. I maintain these are valid arguments that require an answer.

If you can freely choose where the center point is then it's effectively a 90degree arc. If you can't freely choose then where are the rules about when you choose the center point and what your range of options for that choice is?

Re the melta - it works just fine against vehicles, tall models or other flyers.