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.

What is the correct way of judging the firing arc of a flyer's guns up and down? I am thinking of a night/doom scythe in particular. The width of the arc I understand (45 degrees) but I recently had an opponent tell me that the firing arc was also 45 degrees from the horizontal also (i.e. up and down). Don't think this can be right or else the doom scythe couldn't fire at all, right? I had thought one could assume that the scythe was tilted down to shoot?

You'll find that in the vehicle shooting rules.
All weapons have a 45 deg vertical (up and down) arc, no matter how they're mounted.

Hm... That makes the area hit table with the Doom scythe severely limited then, right? It only has a twelve inch range for the starting point. Going to have a look at my model and figure out how this is possible...

All vehicles, particularly fliers, have the same problem.

It's basically 22.5 degrees up, 22.5 degrees down.

Yep... means you need to play better and smarter with your flyer opposed to stopping 2" from the target and shooting directly down at them. Most flyers have an 8" or so blindspot which 'crafty' players try to ignore and then argue when called out on it.

I find that a lot of players tend to conveniently forget firing arcs.

I went to a doubles tournament yestarday, and my partner and I took along a home made template for the 22.5 for that very reason. We were running a foot army with no flyers of our own, so it made quite a difference what units opposing flyers could shoot, heldrakes aside.

The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*. Either way it creates a blind spot right in front of the flyer.

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

nkelsch wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

Fragile wrote:
Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

You just assume vertical is the same as the horizontal picture on page 72 - it's described the same way at least. 45 horizontal, 45 vertical.

The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Fragile wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The only real debate is whether it is 45* or 22.5*.

Not really, when you check the arcs in the rulebook. The picture on page 72 is 45 total, not 45 either side.

Yeah, there is no valid debate... the rulebook is quite clear.

Then whats the page for the 45* Vertical arc.

Same page, the vertical arc is worded the same as the "normal" horizontal arc excepting that it has the word vertical.

If you are applying 45* both up and down you have a total of 90* which is not what the rules allow.

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

Sponsons do not have the 45*(horizontal) they fire in straight lines only, so not a good comparison.

A Valkyrie multilaser/Lascannon however cannot make full use of its 45* due to hull getting in the way.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem arises, is that a gun on top of a tank cannot go "down" nor can a gun under a flyer go "up".

Why is that a problem again?
Can a Land Raider right sponson point left through the tank?

Sponsons do not have the 45*(horizontal) they fire in straight lines only, so not a good comparison.

A Valkyrie multilaser/Lascannon however cannot make full use of its 45* due to hull getting in the way.

Again, not a "problem" and certainly not something that requires debate. There are likely dozens of models that can't traverse a gun through a 45 degree angle because the hull is in the way.

I wasn't debating, merely pointing out that the example provided was not one that falls under the discussed rule and providing an example that does.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I find that a lot of NERCON players tend to conveniently forget firing arcs.

Here is the real question to me:
Do you take the 0 degree point from the position of the weapon itself, or is it measured parallel to the ground?

In any case this rule just leads to something akin to modeling for advantage, and one done for understandable reasons. This sort of modeling isn't a question on how to alter the design to gain an advantage though, it is how to 'legally' position your model to avoid a crippling disadvantage. As the blind spot is directly limited to the length of the stem, and depending on the your answer above the tilt of the vehicle, it would be ridiculous to use anything other then the smallest legal length or the maximum amount of 'tilt' you could realistically put on the model. Anything else would be simply shooting yourself in the foot....

From the physical model - trace along the barrel, that is your "0"

It is still MFA, if you alter to reduce the disadvantage.

Flyers and their placement is tricky at best. The base should be ignored for this and that, but in reality that's really not an option until levitating models are invented.

Therefore we usually allow a bit of leeway in placement of the flyers and their firing arcs. Say the flyer has enough turning and movement to clearly allow shooting at a certain unit but there is rubble or whatever that disallows its stable placement. We would basically allow choosing a target that is within its arc of fire but physically place the flyer maybe couple of inches closer to the target unit that would actually bring the target out of the "official" firing arc. Since it's not like the flyer stops midair to fire you could instead imagine it fired its weapons while flying toward the said target. The flyer could also be imagined to be zooming a bit downward to allow deeper firing arcs. Anyway, this most probably isn't RAW but close enough given the constraints of the game and it has worked for us thus far.

For the record I think flyers are not a very successful addition to the game overall. And yes, I do play Necrons.

I'm just glad the Ork flyers have a natural downward mounting on their base.
Reduces the blind spot a lot, and not changes to the model made!

Nosferatu1001,
So using the smallest stem legally provided to a flyer is modelling for advantage?

I do understand what you are meaning though Nos, and that you are more likely addressing the 'tilt' part of the post, but I still am annoyed over that one rule for this very reason. It is modeling for advantage, to use the smallest stem allowed in order to decrease the 'dead zone' effect being discussed here, but that is what this rule forces the player to do. It would be completely unreasonable for an opponent to deny the flyer, using a legal stem and constructed to legal specifications, simply because it doesn't come with a large enough dead zone in front of it.

I didnt think the current flyers, oval based, came with different sizes of stem?

As such there is one size, and one size only.

This is different to the older flying bases, which had a couple of sizes.

Nosferatu1001,

Truthfully I do not know if they have standardized the flyer stem or not, I don't mess around with flyers for a range of reasons, but the fact still remains you can come across multiple different sized stems that have been reduced by Game Workshop at some point or another. From my understanding, there is no rule in existence that forces players to re-base their models whenever Game Workshop changes the design. If anything the consensus here seems to be the exact opposite, stating it is entirely legal to uses the base that comes with the original model regardless of what changes have been made to the newer models. So unless you are going to be forcing all of your opponents to re-base and re-stem their models, simply because Game Workshop is releasing different bases and stems, then the fact the newer models are being released with a more standardized stem changes nothing.

This rule still makes it silly to use anything other then the smallest stem legally available.

There has only ever been one size of base/stem used by flyers.
The large oval with stem. There are no different sizes.

Flying bases, used by skimmers come is several sizes, but despite their name are never used by flyers.

Truthfully, I do not know nothing about 'flyer stems' within the fifth edition rules and have little experience building fliers in any of the rule sets so first some questions:

As flyers are a sixth edition addition is it really possible to state there was a specifically designed stem for them prior?
Are there any rules in the Rule Book requiring us to re-base or re-stem obsolete units?
Has Game Workshop released an official rule stating we have to use X sized stems for flyers, even if other stems are available?

This is because the core of my point are the stems Grendel083 mentioned, regardless of what they are officially named. Prior to re-classification the models which would be turned into fliers where often skimmers of some type or another. I have seen many references to the fact these fifth edition models came with multiple choices for how long you wanted a stem, so these stems are clearly the legal choices being presented for that model and it was generally accepted as long as you placed the model somewhere between the smallest and largest stems, you where constructing the model in a legal fashion. Given that the general consensus is they are still legal builds even if they where constructed with older editions kits, I can not simply accept the argument that the stem is now 'illegal' simply because Game Workshop released an updated model that uses a different stem.

Though if I did over-look a rule requiring the model's to be re-based or to match the configuration provided in the newer kit's then please provide it to me.

I will give you this point though:
A review of the internet does show a lot of players out there holding to the mentality that the multiple choice of stems for one model means all models should be able to be put on any of the stems. This is clearly in error, as it is possible to point out that all fliers will come with a single stem designed for use with flyers. It does seem to be a misconception that is lingering from something within fifth that clearly wasn't carried over to sixth. Any flyers constructed using the new kit will have to the parts that came in the new kit, and swapping out for a smaller stem would be clear modeling for advantage.

However, my core question still remains:
Is there anything forbidding a player from using a model that was legally constructed from it's fifth edition kit?

None of the 6th edition Flyers were ever sold on a flight base (ie the clear one with varying height stems) - they've only ever been used with the oval base and flight stand (+ looking transparent stand). All the stands have been the same height.

No one is saying they need to be rebased, we're saying that there is no Flyer that came with anything other than the current flight stand (that has never varied in height).