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.

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.

Those blind spots work both ways though. The rules are pretty clear that you only get 45 degrees, and I suggest you use some of that to point your turret at models on the ground. That limits the upwards arc a bit.

What's interesting is you could end your move on top of a building gaining quite a bit of height making it even harder for enemy units to "see" you, or you could end on a gentle slope that changes your angle of attack, pitching you toward the ground or sky.
I really don't like true line of sight and perfer a more abstract system; but that's not for this thread.



-Matt

Consider this: the models are static. Imagine the Stormraven in combat. It is moving all around, so an object in front of it can still be hit as it would pitch down and fire on it.

There. Stormraven on attack vector -



No more stupid blind spot.

HawaiiMatt 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.

Those blind spots work both ways though. The rules are pretty clear that you only get 45 degrees, and I suggest you use some of that to point your turret at models on the ground. That limits the upwards arc a bit.

What's interesting is you could end your move on top of a building gaining quite a bit of height making it even harder for enemy units to "see" you, or you could end on a gentle slope that changes your angle of attack, pitching you toward the ground or sky.
I really don't like true line of sight and perfer a more abstract system; but that's not for this thread.

-Matt

That 45 degree angle only comes into play for vehicles though. Infantry models can fire up at your vehicle sitting on top of the building from right below it, no worrying about angles there.

"The 3 XV88 Broadsides were lying on their backs in the grass, looking at the funny shaped clouds when suddenly this flying box blocked their view so they blasted it."

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

rigeld2 wrote:My point is that the blind spot has always been there. It's nothing new.

And there were several threads discussing the issue when the model was released. With more or less the same outcome... some pointing out that the rules are the rules, and others claiming that models on the large flight stem should have an exception just, you know, because.

Horst wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

And you have now modeled for advantage by doing something the rules did not allow you to do. Some people may refuse to play you, and in tourneys, judges may ask you to play LOS as if it was level and not on a modified for advantage stand. You have accomplished nothing by doing this except possibly bullying some casual gamers into gaining an advantage you don't deserve.

Congrats.

As soon as you shoot at something with your modified LOS, the game ends.

Next they'll be telling you predator sponsons should be able to fire through the hull because they can swivel more than 180.... fail.

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.

This rule has saved my bugs, more than once.

nkelsch wrote:

Horst wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:There. Stormraven on attack vector -

No more stupid blind spot.

What modification did you make to get it like that?

Shaved the flight stand to a bit of an angle, then it was all unstable... so I used a pin vice to install a guide rail so it wouldn't fall over.

And you have now modeled for advantage by doing something the rules did not allow you to do. Some people may refuse to play you, and in tourneys, judges may ask you to play LOS as if it was level and not on a modified for advantage stand. You have accomplished nothing by doing this except possibly bullying some casual gamers into gaining an advantage you don't deserve.

Congrats.

As soon as you shoot at something with your modified LOS, the game ends.

Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

It's not "now". Its not like 6th edition changed how the model is shaped.

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."

Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

It's not "now". Its not like 6th edition changed how the model is shaped.

And if he didn't do it for 'advantage' and it was cinematic, then he would have no problem pretending the default angle of the stock model for LOS, which means the blind spot is intact.

If there was no vertical limitations, the rulebook wouldn't have the 45degree rules. But it does. Which means modifying a model to increase the arc or change the arc to gain more firing range than intended is modeling for advantage.

Testify wrote:Because GW's sloppy designing means that unit you spent £50 on and god knows how many hours painstakingly painting...is now a lot less useful.

Oh the horror. One Marine vehicle gets slightly nerfed by having to move a certain way and it's ok to model it to negate a firing arc restriction inherent in the model?

You were one of the people who said that modelling a DCA with a Power Axe was MFA and, effectively, against the spirit of the game.

Care to explain why that particular case of MFA, which is actually within the rules as it's just showing WYSIWYG, is bad but this one, which is purely MFA by changing the actual dimensions of the model itself, is ok?

Horst wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Horst wrote:Please, enlighten me. Why can't I do this?

What's the difference between that and dropping it down to a 2" height?

You can do anything you want, but I'd call that out in a tournament faster than you can say "Modeling for advantage."

Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

If you just want to do it for looks, sure.
If you want to actually use the new firing arc, no.

The former is absolutely fine. The latter would get a TO called over.

Horst wrote:Why can't you drop it down 2"?

Its my model, I can assemble it any way I want.

Sure, you can build your models however you want. But if your modifications alter the way the model functions in game, some people will see it as modelling for advantage. If they see it as providing a big enough change to how the original model functions, they will either insist you play it as an unmodified model, or refuse to play your army that includes it.

Man, this edition is just going to create so many more entitled players... (sad panda)

What's the range of a storm raven's blind spot if the turret was firring at a 90 degree angle from the direction of travel?

Looking at the the image on page 2, it seems that if the turret is pointing to the side, the 45 degree rule can allow it to engage targets closer than when firing forwards, as there the barrels overhang the hull a fair margin but then again, this is all speculation on my part, I've not seen one at my gaming group yet.

TL: DR can't storm raven just use POTMS to do drive bys?

I also find it funny that I get the same downward effect if my flyer was sitting on a slope downwards. (I'm looking at you realm of battle board)

Does that mean I suddenly gain an extra 45 degrees cause a flyer is slanted down by the terrain? Or should I somehow hold it up so it's perfectly horizontal since it ideally should be flying and supposed to ignore terrain?

Or the reverse, if I'm pointed up due to the terrain it's currently over. Do I suddenly lose all ability to shoot anything since now I'm pointed at the sky?

How about if I'm shooting missles? Do they get to move up and down like guns? How do you guys deal with those?

Is there a difference between a missle and a rocket in these cases?

And if he didn't do it for 'advantage' and it was cinematic, then he would have no problem pretending the default angle of the stock model for LOS, which means the blind spot is intact.

Big Sign!

I have to say your stormraven looks a lot better than it does if it is straight horizontal. So why should anyone disallow you to convert it that way?
But since the conversion is obviously done for a better look (you deny that you model for advantage) we just assume that it would be horizontal and we are all good.
You are complaining about that? Why, then, it doesn't alter your beautiful model in any way...

Crablezworth wrote:Man, this edition is just going to create so many more entitled players... (sad panda)

Sorry, but what does that even mean?

If you really feel that you can't get enough of a downward angle with the autocannons, use lascannons. They are slightly longer, and as you measure LOS from the END of the barrel, that lets you take advantage of the the downward slope of the cockpit a little more.

Yes, there's a blind spot. So next turn, move exactly how many inches you want (using a 90 degree turn to truncate the minimum distance if needed) and then fire all of your guns. Problem solved.

DMajiko wrote:If you really feel that you can't get enough of a downward angle with the autocannons, use lascannons. They are slightly longer, and as you measure LOS from the END of the barrel, that lets you take advantage of the the downward slope of the cockpit a little more.

Actually you trace LoS along the barrel, not from the end. So dreadnoughts can't point their guns straight up and draw LoS from the tips.

Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Oh, my mistake. Still, the LC is thinner than the AC, so it rests at a lower angle for the same effect.

But my second statement stands, which I will reword: the thing flies so d--n fast, how'd you let something get in your blind spot to begin with?

Also, I'm totally behind Stormraven drive-bys. Maybe I'll mod my next one to have the Marine Pilot waving his bolt pistol out the cockpit...

Drunkspleen wrote:

azreal13 wrote:Personally I find the OP's opponent small minded and petty, if I encountered someone outside of a competitive environment who needed to win that badly I'd walk away. It's people like this who encourage me to stay away from the tournament scene and simply enjoy games in the company of friends at the local club.

But to contribute to the discussion. If you intend to shoot the turret at a nearby ground target just pivot the hull. The armour is the same on all facings and the gun comfortably reaches the edge of the hull. Ok, there would still conceivably be a small blind spot, but nowhere near as big. I often instinctively pivot 45 degrees instinctively anyway even though I've never encountered anyone trying to enforce this, as I often want to point the turret gun at a different target.

Personally I find it small minded and petty to want so badly to do something the vehicle was never designed to do that you resort to modifying it's base to gain an unfair in game advantage.

Easy there tiger, let's not be getting personal or over sensitive there huh?

DMajiko wrote:Oh, my mistake. Still, the LC is thinner than the AC, so it rests at a lower angle for the same effect.

But my second statement stands, which I will reword: the thing flies so d--n fast, how'd you let something get in your blind spot to begin with?

Also, I'm totally behind Stormraven drive-bys. Maybe I'll mod my next one to have the Marine Pilot waving his bolt pistol out the cockpit...

Make sure he's holding it Gangsta Style.