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.

I'm new to this game. When firing from a vendetta, do you measure from the barrel of the Lascannon all the way to the surface of the ground to fire at a land target? That would decrease it's range quite a bit...

When firing vehicle-mounted weapons, measure from the barrel (first para of page 71) of the weapon to the nearest point on the target model / unit (ignoring purely decorative items like banners etc). A weapon with the range of the Lascannon, on a model as fast as a Vendetta, I'm struggling to work out how this is an issue? The more pressing problem is the limited firing arc (meaning it is unlikely to be able to shoot at models almost directly underneath it).

Yes, you would include the downward trajectory and lose some distance.

Assuming an approximate 6" in height for a flyer, you would lose less than 0.4" (so 1") from a 48" range weapon.

The real issue with them is the fact these weapons are hull mounted.

This means you are unable to fire them at a downward angle greater then 22.5 degrees from center. Depending on who you play with, that center can either be parallel to the ground or the initial direction your guns are pointing. If you go off the direction they are pointing it is not that bad but when you measure from parallel you start noticing the problem: This creates a minimal range which gets larger the longer your flight stem is.

So if you enjoy using long stems, you can be left with the situation of certain weapons having such a tiny window of effectiveness that your flyer has been rendered to near useless.

For anyone interested, a level gun at a 6" height means a 14.5" minimum distance for firing (If my calculations are correct. It's been a while since I've done any trigonometry.)

HIWPI? Allow a 45° from horizontal arc to account for an aircraft's greater flexibility in its pitch as opposed to its yaw. Not supported by RAW, but makes sense to me from a fluff/realism point of view.

JinxDragon wrote:
The real issue with them is the fact these weapons are hull mounted.

Where do we get that from?

 motyak wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The real issue with them is the fact these weapons are hull mounted.

Where do we get that from?

BRB pg 72.

edit: having checked page 72 it doesn't mention anywhere that vendettas have hull mounted weapons.

 motyak wrote:
edit: having checked page 72 it doesn't mention anywhere that vendettas have hull mounted weapons.

The default is hull mounted unless the model can swivel. Based on the pics on forge worlds site I might give the wing ones some swivel, but not the canopy mounted ones.

rigeld2 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
edit: having checked page 72 it doesn't mention anywhere that vendettas have hull mounted weapons.

The default is hull mounted unless the model can swivel. Based on the pics on forge worlds site I might give the wing ones some swivel, but not the canopy mounted ones.

The thing is the forgeworld conversion bits seem to be a TL LC for the nose, a sensor hub and two TL LCs for the wings. It's just that years ago I gave mine a nose turret (Apache style) and two turrets that sit under the wings, and I dislike the thought that if I busted out the models against a random at a store nowadays (I tend to play with a group of friends who know the score on why they are what they are) they'd assume I'm MFA, when really it was just something I put together ages ago before they were anything near what they are today. It's just frustrating.

Also why is the default hull mounted? That seems to be an odd decision to make, is there any rule backing for that, or just opinion?

The type of mounting makes no difference to vertical fire arc.

 motyak wrote:
edit: having checked page 72 it doesn't mention anywhere that vendettas have hull mounted weapons.

In the Codices that I own, there is quite often no mention of how the weapons are mounted. This seems to be determined by the models themselves. For example, the Autocannon on a Predator is not listed as 'Turret mounted', nor is the Demolisher Cannon on the Vindicator listed as 'hull mounted'. We refer to the models themselves to determine the relevant mounting.

As an interesting aside, the Razorwing Jetfighter is listed as having 'Wing-mounted' Dark Lances, while the Voidraven is listed as having 'Two Void Lances' with no mounting mentioned. Might we see an underslung turret on the Voidraven?

Pg 72 BRB states: "In the rare cases where it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself can not actually do that!"

Seems that this would answer what the vertical fire arc for a flyer's weapons would be.

rigeld2 wrote:

 motyak wrote:
edit: having checked page 72 it doesn't mention anywhere that vendettas have hull mounted weapons.

The default is hull mounted unless the model can swivel. Based on the pics on forge worlds site I might give the wing ones some swivel, but not the canopy mounted ones.

Definitely not - they're mounted on pylons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

Also why is the default hull mounted? That seems to be an odd decision to make, is there any rule backing for that, or just opinion?

Because there are two types of mountings:
Doesn't swivel or look like it can swivel - hull mounted, use rules to determine arcs.
Does swivel (or looks like it should) - the model determines arcs.

But, again, the mounting makes no difference to the weapons' vertical arc, since that is defined by the rules as 45 degrees.

cryhavok wrote:
Pg 72 BRB states: "In the rare cases where it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45 degrees, even if the barrel on the model itself can not actually do that!"

Seems that this would answer what the vertical fire arc for a flyer's weapons would be.

I hate that line with such a passion. It matters in almost every game that has a ground vehicle on one side and a flyer on the other, which is every other game in sixth, and yet they just gloss it over.
It doesn't say if that means 45 degrees from a 90 degree angle so it can swivel up to an angle of 135 degrees, or if those 45 degrees are supposed to allow both upward and downward movement but no more than a total of 45 degrees, so it only has the ability to swivel up 22.5 degrees and equally down, allowing it to only a 112.5 degree escalated attack angle. Or is it 45 degrees from point zero, giving a 90 degree total ability to swivel?

Not to mention that the consensus for extrapolating how the model itself is shooting to begin with is by following the barrel of the gun. So how does that affect the Sisters of Battle Exorcist, which has its guns pointing straight up? If it can never swivel more than 45 degrees, even assuming it's allowed to swivel them all the way forward, it can never shoot at ground targets.

I'm not even able to give any RAW answers or even suggestions as to how to do these things. All I can do is whine. I've read and re-read these rules so many times to attempt to get something sensible out of it, but they are just horribly broken and poorly written.

 insaniak wrote:
But, again, the mounting makes no difference to the weapons' vertical arc, since that is defined by the rules as 45 degrees.

But that's in addition to how much it can swivel on its own, and how it is mounted counts towards that. That same page also says a hull mounted weapon can swivel 45 degrees horizontally, and then shows an example of a predator's side sponsons can cover a more than 180 degree area by swiveling on the model.

Edit: although I realised now that they do differentiate between hull mounted and sponson mounted.
So does that mean if you have a model that, as modeled, can raise its turret further than 45 degrees, it's still only allowed to fire 45 degrees? Or 22.5 degrees?

I can't see that it says anywhere that all weapons are to be assumed to be held at a 90 degree angle, and the 45 degrees are to be measured from that, but I might well be missing something. it does mention "along its barrel" for LOS purposes though.

I think the problem with the exorcist tank's LOS is hilarious. GW truly shows their genius there.

Purifer...chill.

The pictures of firing arcs in the BRB do a pretty good job of explaining it. Maybe you can't find explicit RAW (or Rules as Drawn??) there but you can find some pretty good RAI.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Purifer...chill.

The pictures of firing arcs in the BRB do a pretty good job of explaining it. Maybe you can't find explicit RAW (or Rules as Drawn??) there but you can find some pretty good RAI.

There is not ONE example of how to measure vertically, nor what vertical tilt of the model implies. Should I follow the rule that says to measure along the barrel or the one that says it can pivot only 45 degrees?
And if it can pivot the model (or is positioned at a tilt,) do I then add those 45 degrees on top of the model's pivot or do those things overlap?
What about guns that are hull mounted and can pivot on their own. How do the 45 degrees horizontal work with that? Bastion guns can slightly pivot. Those guns on the chimera? (I think those may be redundant now as it doesn't have those anymore in any of the rules, but I'm sure there are other hull mounted guns that can move. (although I've gotta admit I am not 100% sure where the line is drawn between sponson mounted and hull mounted.)

I think the RAI is thought out with no level elevation in mind. I mean they even say it's extremely rare. Which it clearly isn't in sixth. So I think the RAI is unclear too. I can only imagine the RAI is made for a 2 dimensional game.

Thanks Dra'al for doing the calculations I didn't want to bother with!

Not only do you have to deal with the poorly written 45 degree line when it comes to firing weapons vertically but there is also the move distance as well. If we treat that 45 degree with the same limitations as the horizontal one (22.5 from center) you could easily be looking at a zone of 32.5 inches for a zooming flyer. Which is easily over a third of the bloody board length and most of it's width!

Basically, your looking at a situation where you could never fire at a target if it is within your third of the board without some very complicated maneuvers.

I'm with purifier on this, that one line making it so no weapon has a vertical ark greater then 45 degrees is very annoying. A single line to sum up the vertical firing arc is far from enough to teach us how to calculate these things properly. It is also clear they didn't take all variables into account, even simple ones like how the stem of a flyer comes into play. This is probably one of the most clear examples of 'rules written in a vacuum' that I have ever encountered. Hated even more so thanks to Insaniak pointing out it is a limitation on all weapons and not just hull based ones like I originally thought.

I make it about 14.5 inches to the table, but assuming a 1.5 inch high model you are looking at a min range of 10.9 inches. This is assuming that the guns are about 6 inches above the table.

JinxDragon wrote:
Thanks Dra'al for doing the calculations I didn't want to bother with!

Not only do you have to deal with the poorly written 45 degree line when it comes to firing weapons vertically but there is also the move distance as well. If we treat that 45 degree with the same limitations as the horizontal one (22.5 from center) you could easily be looking at a zone of 32.5 inches for a zooming flyer. Which is easily over a third of the bloody board length and most of it's width!

Basically, your looking at a situation where you could never fire at a target if it is within your third of the board without some very complicated maneuvers.

I'm with purifier on this, that one line making it so no weapon has a vertical ark greater then 45 degrees is very annoying. A single line to sum up the vertical firing arc is far from enough to teach us how to calculate these things properly. It is also clear they didn't take all variables into account, even simple ones like how the stem of a flyer comes into play. This is probably one of the most clear examples of 'rules written in a vacuum' that I have ever encountered. Hated even more so thanks to Insaniak pointing out it is a limitation on all weapons and not just hull based ones like I originally thought.

Edition 6 - Protractor Wars.

Next release by GW is the protractor modelled with a skull. Gotta stack dem dollars!

is that 14 inches to the ground or to the model? As you only have to trace LOS to the hull of a vehicle, you can hit them above ground level, same would be true for the body of an infantry unit. being able to trace LOS to the chest of a model that is an inch off the ground, or a vehicle hull that is several inches off ground, would lower that minimum firing distance I would think... but I'm terrible at most maths, so I'll leave the actual calculations to others

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

Also why is the default hull mounted? That seems to be an odd decision to make, is there any rule backing for that, or just opinion?

Because there are two types of mountings:
Doesn't swivel or look like it can swivel - hull mounted, use rules to determine arcs.
Does swivel (or looks like it should) - the model determines arcs.

just my 2cents but the 14.5" distance is not universal.... to use the beloved by all night scythe for an example the guns on a NS are only about
4 3/4" off the ground (give or take a fraction, im at work and dont have my model in front of me) and assuming your measuring to the highest target-able point on a model (head or upper torso) at 22.5 degrees angle the dead zone is about half that, or even much smaller for taller models or vehicles. I'm not trying to say 14.5 is totally wrong or not accurate for some flyers in some cases but its by no means universal.

 bloodfist1 wrote:
just my 2cents but the 14.5" distance is not universal.... to use the beloved by all night scythe for an example the guns on a NS are only about
4 3/4" off the ground (give or take a fraction, im at work and dont have my model in front of me) and assuming your measuring to the highest target-able point on a model (head or upper torso) at 22.5 degrees angle the dead zone is about half that, or even much smaller for taller models or vehicles. I'm not trying to say 14.5 is totally wrong or not accurate for some flyers in some cases but its by no means universal.

This came up in a large discussion because of the Stormraven's top-mounted turret which gains a pretty huge blind spot. That's probably what was used as the example.

I just think it's ridiculous to have to use protractors to play. Should have just been 180 degrees vertically. There are a lot of things that are sillier than a plane being able to pivot the nose down to strafe a target as it attacks, and it would have made the game flow easier.

Breng77 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

Also why is the default hull mounted? That seems to be an odd decision to make, is there any rule backing for that, or just opinion?

Because there are two types of mountings:
Doesn't swivel or look like it can swivel - hull mounted, use rules to determine arcs.
Does swivel (or looks like it should) - the model determines arcs.

The Heldrake Begs to differ with you unless you put it in the "looks like it can swivel." category. One of my biggest gripes with GW is that they don't state mountings for vehicle weapons.

They really need to do something like "Unless otherwise stated a weapon mount for a vehicle is hull mounted" and then state the mountings for other mountings.