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:
It was an issue. Most people ignored it.

Not from my experience, I have been hiding in stormravens blindspots since the model was released. The guns on top can't shoot through the hull.

I am willing to accept the default config of a dakkajet or vendetta has a slight downward slant... which is why if we had measurements based upon stock models, then people wouldn't be incentivized to measure wrong or MFA as we would all know the minimum distances for LOS at ground level.

And considering terrain, it is easy for your flyer to be ground level and roll up on some dudes on a perch, ruins or hill and be closer to eye level and blast the crap out of them with your weapons. If you want to rapid fire someone, then fly on at an angle to rapid fire the guys you can see on an elevated position.

nkelsch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It was an issue. Most people ignored it.

Not from my experience, I have been hiding in stormravens blindspots since the model was released. The guns on top can't shoot through the hull.

I have been as well - but I get the "What? NO WAY!" response extremely often.
And since I don't remember this thread happening in 5th nearly as often as it has in 6th (yes, there's more Flyers now but still...)

nkelsch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It was an issue. Most people ignored it.

I am willing to accept the default config of a dakkajet or vendetta has a slight downward slant... which is why if we had measurements based upon stock models, then people wouldn't be incentivized to measure wrong or MFA as we would all know the minimum distances for LOS at ground level.

Stock models? So we should apply that to every model GW do, if it's not as in the box then you are MFA and must consult the naughty table that will tell you what True LOS your model should have :p

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It was an issue. Most people ignored it.

I am willing to accept the default config of a dakkajet or vendetta has a slight downward slant... which is why if we had measurements based upon stock models, then people wouldn't be incentivized to measure wrong or MFA as we would all know the minimum distances for LOS at ground level.

Stock models? So we should apply that to every model GW do, if it's not as in the box then you are MFA and must consult the naughty table that will tell you what True LOS your model should have :p

Um, we already do?

If you make a custom model, it has to be roughly the same size as the stock model in height, profile and base. And we play it and apply rules as if it was the stock model.

Vehicles don't get to mount weapons willy nilly and most people expect that if there is a cool conversion the weapon is mounted as if the stock model.

I can't think of a situation where if you change a model with a conversion and it impacts rules you won't be asked to play it as the stock model especially for LOS purposes. Especially at events where conversions can be disqualified for being different. In tourneys, 99% of events have rules against MFA so the TO will agree with me and enforce LOS based upon stock model... and in casual play if you can't agree that MFA is wrong... well then the game doesn't need to continue so the problem solves itself.

In the case of flyers where some people may like to do cinematic poses, they shouldn't get unfair advantages from doing so, it is perfectly acceptable to force players to apply rules as if it was a 'stock' model especially for LOS purposes.

Yeah... there is a world of difference between MFA and the varience you get in how models get assembled. Look at orks for example with their dakka jet.

You can go and work out the angles and come up with a formula for all of the "Standard models" but if someone doesn't have a flat gaming board it doesn't matter. That's why we use true LOS, it's easy and straightforward.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Yeah... there is a world of difference between MFA and the varience you get in how models get assembled. Look at orks for example with their dakka jet.

You can go and work out the angles and come up with a formula for all of the "Standard models" but if someone doesn't have a flat gaming board it doesn't matter. That's why we use true LOS, it's easy and straightforward.

Well if in 90% of situations a dakkajet has a 10" blindspot from the base to marine-sized models, then players can make better tactical decisions with that info as well as understanding that their planes have blindspots and they can fly on the board 18" and stop 1" from a model and due to real life physics somehow can shoot directly at the model 1" from the base.

Apparently people need this information written down for them as they either ignore the 22.5 downward firing arc, or can't seem to figure it out during gameplay or model for advantage to avoid it. If it was easy and everyone followed the rules in good faith we wouldn't even have this subforum.

nkelsch wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Yeah... there is a world of difference between MFA and the varience you get in how models get assembled. Look at orks for example with their dakka jet.

You can go and work out the angles and come up with a formula for all of the "Standard models" but if someone doesn't have a flat gaming board it doesn't matter. That's why we use true LOS, it's easy and straightforward.

Well if in 90% of situations a dakkajet has a 10" blindspot from the base to marine-sized models, then players can make better tactical decisions with that info as well as understanding that their planes have blindspots and they can fly on the board 18" and stop 1" from a model and due to real life physics somehow can shoot directly at the model 1" from the base.

Apparently people need this information written down for them as they either ignore the 22.5 downward firing arc, or can't seem to figure it out during gameplay or model for advantage to avoid it. If it was easy and everyone followed the rules in good faith we wouldn't even have this subforum.

And then there are people forgetting that the whole rules set is an abstraction designed to allow static models to be moved around as if they were actually fighting. IT is specifically stated in numeous versions of the 40k rules that models are assumed to be taking shots over then whole of the movement phase as they move from firing position to firing position. Why should fliers be any different? Its not a problem with physics, its a problem with the rules abstraction. Given the complexity of what the 40k rules are trying to do (and mostly succeeding) if everyone blindly followed the rules you would very quickly find the game ending due to impossible rules paradoxes. Hence the "suggestion" at the start of the rule book that everyone should be having fun and that actually, the rules are more like guidelines anyway

Yeah, who needs those silly things like firing arcs - let the plane shoot behind them - like a strafing run or something.

Or wait - how about we discuss actual rules in the sub forum meant for discussing rules? Can we do that?

We are discussing rules. We are discussing how the current rules for fire-arcs on aircraft models aren't terribly good