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.

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.

Yea, how DARE I modify a vehicle so its weapons aren't useless against most targets.

I am truly histories greatest monster.

Hitler, move over.

Horst wrote:

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.

Yea, how DARE I modify a vehicle so its weapons aren't useless against most targets.

I am truly histories greatest monster.

Hitler, move over.

They're only useless if the targets are close enough to be in their design-inherent blind spot, in which case you've messed up your movement. With being able to pre-measure there's no real excuse to ending up in that kind of situation. You know the rough range that those guns can hit ground targets, you measure from the unit you want to shoot at to find out where you need to go to be able to shoot them and then move there.

You messing up your movement doesn't mean that the models guns are useless.

Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

I would never ever even thought about this without this thread. It seems to absurd to assume that a flying vehicle is actually glued in the air and cannot alter its angle at all.

Many people model their Stormraven guns under the wings anyway, as they look stupid on the roof. What happens then?

And how about terrain? As noted, this ruling causes agled terrain to alter fliers' weapon arcs massively.

BTW, I don't know what kind ow missiles Storm Eagle has, but better hope they're strictly anti-aircraft, as with this kind of ruling it is pretty much impossible to hit anything on the ground level with them, regardless of the distance.


Interestingly, the new orc planes and Stormtalon have their noses pointing slightly downwards with the standard assembly. So those can shoot at things on the ground more easily?

There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

azreal13 wrote: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.

Zooming fliers can't pivot at the end of their move.

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

Horst wrote:

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

If I were you I would model it at an angle then try to find less douchy people to play with.

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things.

That is not a rule.

No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists.

Page 72: 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 cannot physically do that! Additionally , assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally 45 degrees.

And then is a page full of diagrams where HULL blocks LOS.

This very situation has rules to handle the situation. almost all vehicles have explicit blind spots.

You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Yes we can, because there is a correct way to mount the model and rules that give vehciles limited range of fire and blind spots.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

Show us the rule that allows you to modify the base and modeling for advantage? the ruleset is permissive. I do see rules that require you to use the base the model came with...

tgf wrote:

Horst wrote:

Titan Atlas wrote:Yeah, pre-measuring is kinda the solution. Just move accordingly. Be strategic. It's frustrating, but we'll just have to adjust, I guess.

I usually use plasma cannons though, so maybe I'm lacking perspective, although with the new skyfire setup I suppose AC could have some serious usefulness, but the epic range of bloodstrikes makes them more enticing for that purpose than a 24" range 4 shot gun with rending that has an irritating limitation (that realistically does make sense, but only because they don't allow you to modify the base....it also makes sense that you should be able to position your vehicle accordingly, but...rules are rules I guess, we'll just adjust and do fine)

I mean, the rule kinda is a bummer, but I have a feeling that we'll do absolutely fine even then, and again, there are other options, that's just the very unfortunate limitation of the AC.

People keep saying "rules are rules"....

but as far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from just playing it modeled at an angle.

And honestly... it looks cooler this way anywho.

If I were you I would model it at an angle then try to find less douchy people to play with.

I've been using it for over a year now, and someone just brought this up... and I had no retort. Hence this post.

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled 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 cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled 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 cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Still a good effort

Guess I haven't memorized the rules 100% yet. Seems strange they would do this, seems unnecessary. As far as mounting tilting down, I don't think that is MFA, its a conversion, and it limits your upwards shots should you ever need to take them. I have 2 dakkajets and 2 sythes, and to be honest I mounted the dakka's down because that is the way I imagined they would look when doing a strafing run, I have no idea if they are mounted "correctly" or not. The sythes on the other hand are just zooming flat.

Using the terrain to change your arc angles is not a problem since most vehicles can do this to hit higher angled targets (although a dangerous test will occur) or lower angled targets in the case for flyers.

RE: MFA

MFA is like placing tau skimmers on their landing gear to get better cover for the vehicle and infantry behind it, drones flat on the floor to gain cover (almost impossible now to get cover for drones due to their stands).

We are still talking about a blindspot of about maybe 6-7" from the flyer's base... which means ther stormraven player got out manuvered and is bad at playing the game.

Most people will be very liberal with the 45degree arc.

If someone is under you... fly somewhere else

shock_at wrote:Using the terrain to change your arc angles is not a problem since most vehicles can do this to hit higher angled targets (although a dangerous test will occur) or lower angled targets in the case for flyers.

RE: MFA

MFA is like placing tau skimmers on their landing gear to get better cover for the vehicle and infantry behind it, drones flat on the floor to gain cover (almost impossible now to get cover for drones due to their stands).

Well rules-wise Tau vehicles (except for Piranhas) are allowed to land in game. They come with Landing Gear which allows them, if they do not move, to land on the ground and no longer count as a skimmer for that turn. So that particular tactic isn't technically MFA unless the vehicle moves, in which case it should be back on its stand. They can't do it on the first turn though.

Except landing gear does not give permission to remove the base. Yes it no longer counts as a skimmer, but it must still be on the supplied base.

In the future there are only fliers that travel exactly 50 feet from the ground maintaining a completely horizontal flight path.

tgf wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled 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 cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

Still a good effort

Guess I haven't memorized the rules 100% yet.

They had nearly the same rule in 5th; the rule about vertical traverse was just in a different paragraph, instead of being in the same one with the one about horizontal traverse.

tgf wrote:Seems strange they would do this, seems unnecessary.

It's necessary because the terrain and models are three-dimensional.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

tgf wrote:There is only a blind spot for people that fail to realize were are using static models to represent dynamic things. No one can point to a place in the rulebook that says there is a vertical 45 or 90 degree arc. Only a horizontal exists. You could easily mount the stormraven pointing down if your opponents are such great tools they would claim a blind spot. It hovers, floats moves, there is absolutely no rational argument to say that because you mounted it in as if it was in an assent it can not shoot something on the ground.

Actually I can. Page 72 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons & Line Of Sight"

"One some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled 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 cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45 degrees."

BOOYAH!

EDIT: Ninja'd!

That only applies to models where because of how it was converted or glued it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place. This is not carte' blanche to ignore how the model was designed. Yes if you glue the barrels pointing up to look cool or some kind of decorative pate under the barrels you are allowed to assume the barrels can still swivel, not that you can ignore the actual hull of the model.

I'm a little puzzled by the people suggesting that enforcing the weapons' fire arcs as laid out in the vehicle is in some way TFG behaviour. Certainly it would make more real-world sense to allow the vehicle to pivot to better bring weapons to bear... but the rules don't do so, so I don't really see any reason to assume that it should be possible.

Besides, if you're going to bring real-world logic into it, roof-mounted weapons wouldn't generally be intended for use against ground targets anyway. So them not having an ideal arc of fire to do so actually makes more sense, from that point of view.

We had this exact same discussion, what, 2 years ago?

This exact conceptual discussion is the reason that the following 2 photos are in my Gallery:



and



The first is a Valkyrie at the most extreme angle one could place it on the Flight stem without gluing and still have enough stability to not worry about it falling over.

The Second is showing the basic seating.

If I can find that thread I will edit and link to it.

insaniak wrote:Besides, if you're going to bring real-world logic into it, roof-mounted weapons wouldn't generally be intended for use against ground targets anyway. So them not having an ideal arc of fire to do so actually makes more sense, from that point of view.

Sadly my second-hand Stormraven has Plasma Cannons in the roof turret... Blast weapons that you can't fire at flyers. So not only do I have the blind spot but the weapon system is ground targets only.

Please tell me those toolbars at the top of your browsers are for trolling purposes...

An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

HoverBoy wrote:An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

lol... valks and vendettas.

Yea, its a real problem for you guys, because, you know, guard have so many top turret mounted assault cannons on fliers.

Go back to playing your underpriced overgunned fliers, we're talking about stormravens here.

Spetulhu wrote:Sadly my second-hand Stormraven has Plasma Cannons in the roof turret... Blast weapons that you can't fire at flyers. So not only do I have the blind spot but the weapon system is ground targets only.

The Stormraven's roof turret is nicely level with the roof of the Imperial Bastion...

Horst wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:An interesting argument you SM players have there, and it goes so well with all the historic accounts of B-17s and other similarly designed planes using their top mounted machinegun to mow down enemy infantry.

PS: All my valks/dettas are mounted on the base as given and follow the 45 degree rules at all times.

lol... valks and vendettas.

Yea, its a real problem for you guys, because, you know, guard have so many top turret mounted assault cannons on fliers.

Go back to playing your underpriced overgunned fliers, we're talking about stormravens here.

Your jealousy. It is delicious.

Now so whats the verdict on the flying dumpster? Is the asscannon not able to hit ground targets 18inches or less away.

You can't change a model for an advantage.... that would be "modelling for an advantage"

How anyone can think its allowable via the rules is beyond me. Might compassionate friends allow it? Sure. Are they allowing you to break the rules? Yes.

BTW. If you are just a few inches off center to a unit in front of you, you LOS and 45 degree angle requires less than 5 inches to hit something on the table. Just don't be silly enough to put something in your blind spot (which simply is there).

This is like complaing that its unfair the demolisher cannon on a vindicator can't hit something behind it... that's kinda what fire arcs are about.

Okay, say i took a vendetta,and modeled it so its wing lascannons are in a 180 degree vertical turret so i can shoot straight behind me. Is that MFA. Yes. Modelling a drednaughts base so it can shoot over rhinos. MFA.

Modelling X unit so it has Y advantage is still MFA.

Just play it like it is, and quit complaining. If its such a big deal, then remove the asscannons or actually use thought in the movement phase to align the target.

You keep using this term, modeling for advantage. Point it out to me in the rulebook.

What page is it on.