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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

No I mean you have no RAW basis on which to judge what is correct and not correct.
You have decided a specific way of modelling the storm raven, and making up that there is a RAW basis for this - there is not.

If there is, it's not that far. Call that guy out on cheating and pack up your army if he insists on it.

jcress410 wrote:
I really don't think you have to be super WAAC to want every edge you can get against flyers right now.

I don't need an "edge" against anything, because there isn't a single game of warhammer 40K that I have to win so bad that it's worth ruining my opponent's fun. I don't want to hear my opponent say, "Aww come on dude!"

I know someone who says that, but it's usually to his models.

He also yells "you're all fired!" when he rolls bad.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I know someone who says that, but it's usually to his models.

He also yells "you're all fired!" when he rolls bad.

For Example:

The other day two guys at my FLGS were starting a game of WH40K. They had just spent 45 minutes pulling out their models, reserving a table, making up army lists etc. There in the middle of setting up and the space wolf player is placing his wolf guard unit on the table. His opponent, (Eldar) says, "That unit isn't legal anymore. All of the wolf guard are characters, and the space wolf "leaders of the pack" rule says they all have to be armed differently. But you have 5 wolf guard all with combi-plasma's and power weapons. So you need to change that unit." And the space wolf player says...(wait for it)..."Aw come on dude." They spent another 10 minutes arguing about it before making a decision of how to play it, but by that time they were both frustrated and not having fun anymore.

EDIT : Probably the reason they were arguing in the first place is because the core rules have just changed and no one is 100% clear on how every thing has changed. But anyway...

I recognize that this forum is about what the rules are and that many (most) people here are interested in tournament play. So naturally, there will be a little bit more competetive spirit. For tournament play, I think it's reasonable to "play the storm raven as if level". That's fine. But here is the argument you should get ready for.

"That's not level!"

"Yes it is!"

"No it's not!"

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Play it perfectly level, and then you dont gain any advantage

That concept was only mooted what, 5 times?

You have no RAW basis for that whatsoever.

You have no RAW ability to use a non-correct model in the game. So, assumin you want to actually play a game playing the model as if it were correctly assembled would be a big help.

No I mean you have no RAW basis on which to judge what is correct and not correct.
You have decided a specific way of modelling the storm raven, and making up that there is a RAW basis for this - there is not.

When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

the rules covering this have been given. Present something proving your point, or retract and concede.

And in situations when GW doesn't even provide the model (conversion beamer)? Intentional or not, they leave a lot of this up to interpretation. In cases like this it is actually in the rules that it is up to the players involved through a dice roll if they can't agree, even if the rules are there but are still "confusing."

But the dice roll shouldn't be whether a player can modify their storm raven's arc of sight (through whatever means they choose); the roll should be deciding whether or not both players can modify any arc of sight.

Edit: Now I'm kind of concerned about my Icarus lascannon...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

You've repeatidly referred to your position as RAW - unelss you can point me to the page in the rulebook that specifies this, you're flat out wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

I'm sorry but by your own argument, I can say that you have failed to field a storm raven purely by RAW if you do not have the 10-5 degrees of tilt by the instruction manual. (see above). I've cited now several pages in the book though they are in the hobby section that specifically allows me to model them, as well as the scanned instruction manual showing how it is not level even purely by RAW as you claimed. I again ask, show me the page.

You can most definately have some tilt as well. I have a valk that the base piece barely fits the stem. I really can only get it inserted at an angle to fit but it fits. The piece was cast too small to make it fit level. It's not broken because it still slots the stem though it's crooked when I first assembled it. If I took a knife and hollowed it out some more, or shaved the stand, I can probably get it to fit level. But by your other above definations, I'd be modifying the base and thus cheating. In the end, it looked cooler since it appeared it was turning or banking, so I just left it as such.

Not sure if it's been brought up already or not...

But the BA Baal Pred w/ the Flamethrower of doom is too short to fire with the Template...
The rules state "any model falling completely or partially under the Template is hit", and the first 1/2" or so is over the hull.

And GW put it in the FAQ, you CAN fire the Flamer...

I have seen no such FAQ for the LOS of the SR's Assault Cannons...

Just saying...

The preds bring up a good point in that I've seen land raider crusaders and redeemers mounted with the cannons/guns on both the front or back side of the tank for picking hatches.

Is it considered MFA if I have it up front instead of the back?

The GW web site has the guns in both places. Who wins RAW for placement? i.e. can I put them anywhere? Just in the back? or the front? Or does it matter?

Game play wise, it certainly matters. But is that MFA too? And where should the turrets be then if everyone that puts them up front is MFA?

Skipphag da Devoura wrote:Not sure if it's been brought up already or not...

But the BA Baal Pred w/ the Flamethrower of doom is too short to fire with the Template...
The rules state "any model falling completely or partially under the Template is hit", and the first 1/2" or so is over the hull.

And GW put it in the FAQ, you CAN fire the Flamer...

I have seen no such FAQ for the LOS of the SR's Assault Cannons...

Just saying...

Ignoring the model firing the Template weapon, so that the template may be fired at all, is entirely different from ignoring the model entirely for LOS.

Ignoring the Model is actually in the Template weapon's rules(Second paragraph, last sentence: "A template weapon never hits the Model firing it.") The Baal Predator FAQ answer was there from 5th and never removed(probably as a Reminder).

So per the Rules ytou CAN fire the flamer without it effecting the vehicle in any way; But assault cannons still cannot fire through the storm raven....

Just saying...


Sudjoe: the instruction tell you that Either placement is valid on the Land raiders(have said so since the current base Land raider kit came out in third ed).

My First Raider had the Lascannons in back, My Crusader has the Hurricane bolters up front, I was presented a choice in my build and went with the one that was most advantageous on the table(also the one that seemed less likely that my Bolters would be firing into my marines).

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When assembled according to the instructions, there IS only one way that the model will turn out - within *very* tight tolerances. Assembling it another way means it is no longer a citadel model of a stormraven, and you have no permission to play it in the game.

You've repeatidly referred to your position as RAW - unelss you can point me to the page in the rulebook that specifies this, you're flat out wrong.

You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

Sudojoe - you have posted quotes from the Hobby section, not the Rules section. Find a rules quote that allows you to convert models. Unti you can do so you have no permission to use a converted model, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

Sudojoe - you have posted quotes from the Hobby section, not the Rules section. Find a rules quote that allows you to convert models. Unti you can do so you have no permission to use a converted model, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

nosferatu1001 - you have posted no rules that support your statement including the instruction manual statement which I actually reference above. Until you can find me a rule that tells me how to assemble a model in the rules section that limits positioning on top of the supplied base, I will follow the only instructions available which are from the hobby section, no matter how much you complain otherwise.

I'm fairly certain that we're pretty much at the point where we can agree that we disagree and it'll be up to some TO somewhere to decide one way or the other what they will and will not tolerate for any particular event. I'll keep modeling for cool factor and you'll keep modeling them straight as a protractor. To each his own.

sudojoe wrote:I'm fairly certain that we're pretty much at the point where we can agree that we disagree and it'll be up to some TO somewhere to decide one way or the other what they will and will not tolerate for any particular event. I'll keep modeling for cool factor and you'll keep modeling them straight as a protractor. To each his own.

Model it however you want - but if you're doing it for the cool factor what's wrong with playing it as if it was flat?

Model it however you want - but if you're doing it for the cool factor what's wrong with playing it as if it was flat?

Because I don't really even believe it was meant to be played as it was flat and many a posts keep telling me to model it flat which I disagree heavily with. I can't find a spot anywhere other than people's opinions that it should be played as flat. It's entirely a user convention.

instruction manual - it's not flat (it's actually banked by 5 to 10 degrees to the left if you follow it exactly, see referenced image eariler in thread)
no RAW says it's supposed to be flat
GW site doesn't even show it as flat
It can be assembled without extra parts or green stuff or cutting to be at an angle.
The hobby section tells me to assemble it as I see fit.
The rules of the game allow any model to be used and there is no rule that says it must be flat. It simply doesn't exist.

Some people decided that it should be flat and are trying to tell me that I am somehow cheating if I don't play it flat. I just can't find the justification for it in any and all available reference materials. Frankly it just feels like bullying when people tell me to do something I can't find any proof for and it's just their word against mine. To me, it implies that they feel they are somehow better than me and I can't stand that unless there's actual proof of some kind. We're all equals here playing a game. If there's a rule discreprency we can all roll it off or call a TO to decide. That'd be fair to me.

Some TO's might agree with you and say I should play it flat, and I'm ok when it's like that. Some TO's might agree with me and say that play it as modeled with angles included. You loose range but gain dead space, that's your trade off.

Simply telling me I'm wrong without any evidence just doesn't work for me.

Doubt we'll ever really reach any conclusions here. The camps are pretty much set in their ways but at least it's given me pleny of opportunities to kill time at work lol.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

That's because there is no such rule.
This is starting to look a bit sad now. How can you claim that your standpoint is supported by the rules, then when asked where insist that it's not your job to provide a reference?

@ Kommissar Kel

That's what I mean...

The Template rules clearly state that the firing model is never hit, AND they put it in an FAQ...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc... The SR, not having such an FAQ, and the assault cannons not having such a rule; one must conclude that the SR can NOT fire it's Assault Cannons through it's hull.

I do however see a problem in that actual aircraft can adjust their angle of attack to strafe the ground with their wing-mounted armament... And the SR is called a "gun-ship", a designation typically reserved for anti-ground helicopters; leading one to believe that it would have this capacity... Again, however, the SR is listed as supersonic; and I personally have never heard of a supersonic craft that can hover... Nor have I ever heard of a gun-ship with it's gun-turrets on the roof...

My question then is...
With several of my gaming buddies modelling the turret on the bottom of the SR (looking significantly more awesome!), and not having the ST out yet, do we call this MFA, or just asthetic?
The codeci do not claim that the turret is an anti-aircraft turret, but the model requires significant modification to mount it under the nose. So, while very cool looking, and more in-line with the title "gun-ship", we are led to believe that this is indeed MFA, even if not intentional.
The ST is also designated a "gun-ship", and DOES have the turret mounted under the nose.
Let us look to real-world counterparts...
The bombers of WWII had all manner of turrets - top, belly, nose, tail, and waist(s)... Paratroopers were delivered by planes that had no belly turrets, as they could get in the way of personel deploying from the craft. One could easilly argue that this was the also in the design concept by GW (not that I would ever, in any way, claim that Ward was a rational entity ). Thus we see that the "transport" does NOT have the belly gun.
The transport helo's of modern warfare are the same, with the notable exception of the Soviet Hind (which does look a lot like the SR).
Gun-ships, such as the venerable Cobra, and the Apache, have under-nose mounted turrets. And look more like the ST. And the ST fills the escort roll that these helo's fulfill.

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for.

As to the issue of "flat" or "angled", if that mattered, then I would have to ask how one can assault fliers with ground troops.

Not sure why I got involved in this one, as I am an Ork player (primarily), and rarely do anything other than paint spess mehrennz. Of course, I have the same beliefs as to the use of the turrets on my fantastic new burna-bommaz (anti-air).

My Fiea-Berdz iz gonna burn everfing!!!
WAAAAGH!!!! Skipphag da Devoura!!!!

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for

So how's the plasma cannons turret supposed to work you figure? Fliers can't get hit by blast templates and all....

sudojoe wrote:

IMHO, the SR's turret is anti-air, and the ST is the anti-ground. The SR does NOT have the ability to fire through it's hull, and so, has a limited arc to the front of the craft when firing at ground targets... It's purpose is delivering troops, not hosing the ground. If you want that capacity, get Storm Talons... AND the ST can escort the SR, to ensure that you get the coverage that you're looking for

So how's the plasma cannons turret supposed to work you figure? Fliers can't get hit by blast templates and all....

GW obviously intended it to be decorative rather than functional.

Its a flare gun, to celebrate victory after a hard fought game.

Awesome! Flare gun!
Very Orky.

I don't have a clue how it's supposed to work on that note... Seems like it would work as flakk, maybe?

The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

If you have a Plasma Cannon (like me) then you use POTMS and you target something to the left or right of the stormraven.

Testify wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know those rules quotes int eh thread?

Those ones. I'm not doing your work for you by repeating myself here.

That's because there is no such rule.
This is starting to look a bit sad now. How can you claim that your standpoint is supported by the rules, then when asked where insist that it's not your job to provide a reference?

When the references have already been provided in the thread, no I do not have to repeat myself due to one posters inabilityor unwillingness to read back through. Try looking back, references to the rules have been given many times.

"A bit sad" - I agree with. rules quotes have been given many times, how about you find rules allowance to use converted miniatures - you know, those ones that arent Citadel Miniatures any longer?

Sudojoe - no agree to disagree, as you have shown not a shred of rules support.

You're looking to excuse MFA.

Nos, if you are so adamant you are correct then please post a page number. I have looked through the thread and cannot see you referencing a page number to support your stance since this argument began between you, Sudojoe, and Testify.

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

Its useless at the purpose you'd most want it for... supporting your units assault.

Its use is going to be, instead, shooting at things further away. Might as well have a weapon designed for range then.

edit - a 2.5" dead spot is NOT comparable to a 14" dead spot... and for anti-air, TLLC >>> TLAC

WhoopieMonster wrote:Nos, if you are so adamant you are correct then please post a page number. I have looked through the thread and cannot see you referencing a page number to support your stance since this argument began between you, Sudojoe, and Testify.

Page 2. THe Citadel Miniatures used to play the game
Page 3 Base sizes

They have all been given before.

Horst - you do realise it can still happily support? Your units assault 8 - 18 inches away from your vehicle, so the deadspot as you call it isnt exactly that useless.

Sorry the model has some designed in defects. Deal with it.

Horst wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Horst wrote:The answer to this thread is that there is a 12-14" blind spot around the stormraven's top turret, so the assault cannon is relatively useless.

The plasma cannon is also relatively useless. Both of these weapons would be ones you want to fire to support your assault unit's charge. As you cannot do this, the only viable option for turret gun is the TLLC, because you can fire it at far off tanks, and the dead spot doesn't matter in this case.

Lock thread please?

I'm sorry but how does that make it useless? It can still fire at units 14-24" away. If it were a weapon with a 12" range it would be useless but it isn't.

As it is it is just a weapon which can fire at any air target within range and at ground targets within a minimum and maximum range, just like my Tau Hammerhead can't fire a Submunition round at anything within 2.5" of its nose because the blast would hit it as well (even though that blast would not be able to actually damage the tank at all).

Useless is when it cannot do anything.

Its useless at the purpose you'd most want it for... supporting your units assault.

Its use is going to be, instead, shooting at things further away. Might as well have a weapon designed for range then.

edit - a 2.5" dead spot is NOT comparable to a 14" dead spot... and for anti-air, TLLC >>> TLAC

It's normal for a vehicle to have some weapons options which are rather "pointless" and some which are no-brainers, it's always been that way in just about every codex.

Also remember that in 6th edition, you:

-Disembark within 6 inches
-Charge up to 12 inches

Meaning your charge targets are going to be >6 inches away, and typically, about 12 inches out...where your range starts to come into play. And typically, you wouldnt want to use a vehicles gun to support chargers - you run the risk of taking your unit out of assault range.

And as I've said before, your blindspot is not that large, it is that large to shoot at the flat ground in front of the raven, however the models you're firing at do have a height, so they're going to intersect the angle earlier than that. You don't have to see the bottoms of their feet to fire on them.

The success rate for a 6" charge is like 70%... and it decreases every inch after that. I want to drop my guys off within 12" of the target almost always, so I can have a nearly 100% chance of making the charge.

If your deploying far back enough to actually use the assault cannon, you run the risk of A) not making the charge in the first place, or B) killing 2-3 models from the unit your trying to charge, increasing the risk of A. Of course, killing 2-3 models wouldn't matter if your deploying 3" away from them to begin with, but if your deploying at 6-8" out, your fail rate for charges becomes MUCH higher.


So, the assault cannon is useless. I just wish it came with a disclaimer on the vehicle, warning people that because GW did a terrible job with flier rules combined with the model design, the weapon has a 14" blind spot.