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.

Isnt LoS from hull mounted weapons drawn like a cone with a 45° angle? If so, wouldnt both weapons be out of LoS since they cant angle down?

Tilt the Raven forward on its stand a little bit and then yes, absolutely.

In that scenario, no, the land raider is not in the fire arc of the raven's weapons, due to the ridiculous 45 degree thing.

It would be borderline as to whether anything on the raider other than the havoc launcher has an arc to shoot at the raven, as well.

In practice, I find that a lot of players just ignore the vertical arc where flyers are involved. Particularly given GW's habit of mounting weapons on the top of flying vehicles...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just to nitpick...

 Sir Arun wrote:
Isnt LoS from hull mounted weapons drawn like a cone with a 45° angle?

The horizontal arc for hull mounted weapons is 45 degrees.

The vertical arc for all weapons is also set to 45 degrees.

Land Raider is partially in the Storm Raven's firing arc though... I would compromise that Storm Raven can not shoot ALL it's weapons (like turret), but can shoot hull-mounted weapons.

missiles look like a yes, multimelta and lascannons a no. Tilt forwards for an easier time, or don't drive so close

The missiles look like a definite maybe, the turret looks like a definite maybe not, the multi melta honestly I would have to check that because it looks like the tail end of the LR might be within the 22.5 degree arc.

Tilting forward seems to be a textbook example of modelling for example.

Missile yes Multi Melta yes Turret no. Even if it was tilted the turret would still be shooting through the body of the Stormraven.

Kriswell,
I think flyers where designed with this forward tilt in mind, more so the few that have weapons positioned on top of them....

JinxDragon wrote:
Kriswell,
I think flyers where designed with this forward tilt in mind, more so the few that have weapons positioned on top of them....

I was being a little snarky. The assembly instructions show the Stormraven at a "flat" angle. If you assemble the model in a different fashion to gain in-game advantage... well then, modelling for advantage. It would be exactly like gluing your Marines on their bases on their sides so they were shorter and you got better cover.

I wouldn't care though, so long as an opponent didn't think he could change the angle in game.

 Kriswall wrote:

I wouldn't care though, so long as an opponent didn't think he could change the angle in game.

The amusing thing about that comment is that I have some Land Speeders that came with just the peg and base, and some with the ball-and-socket joint to go on the peg. So, some of my Land Speeders can, indeed, change their angle during the game.

 Kriswall wrote:
Tilting forward seems to be a textbook example of modelling for example.

No more questionable than GW modeling flyers that basically can't shoot anything and your opponent actually arguing over it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
[..., and some with the ball-and-socket joint to go on the peg. So, some of my Land Speeders can, indeed, change their angle during the game.

The fact that the model is physically capable of changing during the game doesn't mean you're actually allowed to do so...

no, it can't rules are rules and they're there for a reason - like stopping people saying "This flier can shoot its forward facing guns at a model that's essentially underneath it".

This is a 3 dimensional game and should be played as such. there are rules for vertical traverse that do indeed allow fliers to avoid being shot by a hull mounted weapon, and will stop a flier from shooting a weapon at something it couldn't possibly shoot it at.

The argument that you should ignore this is not backed up by rules or logic. you're basically saying "Shoot up without aiming up" and "Shoot down without aiming down". let's just roll the bullets out of the guns so they fall on the enemy. if you want to shoot down, you drop a bomb. don't got one? then shoot your ranged weapon from a range other than point blank, or it's too late, you missed it.

yes, this means that you'll have to be a bit more careful with where you move your models. is that really such a bad thing? a bit of tactical thinking in a tactical wargame? planning ahead in a game that revolves around turns 5-7? thinking where you'll move a vehicle that actually has to be able to aim its guns at the enemy to shoot them?


as for the tilting thing, I've noticed the flying bases seem to tilt slightly in one direction, so it's likely the models are intended to look like they're swooping down in a strafing run kinda way.

 some bloke wrote:
This is a 3 dimensional game and should be played as such. there are rules for vertical traverse that do indeed allow fliers to avoid being shot by a hull mounted weapon, and will stop a flier from shooting a weapon at something it couldn't possibly shoot it at.

So flyers can only ever fly along perfectly parallel to the ground, and can never angle their nose down towards the ground while hovering?

This isn't a case of the rules being used to reflect accurate fire arcs. It's an example of GW throwing in a rule without thinking through the consequences of it.

The 45 degree vertical arc, aside from being a pain in the squigsack to determine, is a rule that causes all sorts of issues beyond just shooting with flyers, which is why a lot of players just ignore it. It's more trouble than it's worth.

The argument that you should ignore this is not backed up by rules or logic. you're basically saying "Shoot up without aiming up" and "Shoot down without aiming down".

No, what we're saying is that we should make some allowances for the fact that a flyer is not (in universe) mounted on a stick and incapable of altering its vertical height or its angle of flight. In the same way that a guy modelled kneeling down shouldn't actually be forced to move around the table on his knees.

This is an image still taken out of StrikingScorpion82's latest battlereport video on youtube, Night Lords vs Imperial Fists with Blood Angel allies

I'd always assumed that the weapons mounted on top of a flier were for shooting at other aircraft... or for doing wing-overs and shooting dudes on the ground with style.

 Psienesis wrote:
I'd always assumed that the weapons mounted on top of a flier were for shooting at other aircraft... or for doing wing-overs and shooting dudes on the ground with style.

The Thunderhawk has a battlecannon on the roof, and the Stormraven can mount plasma cannons up there... neither of which are any use against flyers.

The rules for wh40k are nonsensical and the model designs are problem matic and impractical in real life. The land raider design and predators are so counter intuitive.

 insaniak wrote:

No, what we're saying is that we should make some allowances for the fact that a flyer is not (in universe) mounted on a stick and incapable of altering its vertical height or its angle of flight.

ok, so if a stormraven were to be flying, and wind up in that position aiming directly downwards, I'm pretty sure it would crash next turn, don't you think? ignoring the rules like this is just making the game mind-numbingly simple. if there are no consquences for bad positioning and bad tactics, "oh I didn't think of that" and other blunders, then you might as well just each roll a D6 and whoever rolls highest wins.

you could also argue that a flier could shoot something whilst it's moving, so why not measure range from anywhere the flier moved over, in any direction.

as for the 45 degree arc being hard to determine, get a piece of paper and fold it diagonally so the edges meet. there you go, a 45 degree template, simply hold it up and see where it points.

 some bloke wrote:

ok, so if a stormraven were to be flying, and wind up in that position aiming directly downwards, I'm pretty sure it would crash next turn, don't you think?

Would it? I'll have to take your word for it. Apparently you know more about the aerodynamics of fictional aircraft than I do.

Who was talking about it going vertical, though?

ignoring the rules like this is just making the game mind-numbingly simple. if there are no consquences for bad positioning and bad tactics, "oh I didn't think of that" and other blunders, then you might as well just each roll a D6 and whoever rolls highest wins.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't be penalised for bad tactics.

Just that tactics shouldn't depend on the idea that every flying vehicle in the game is eternally moving at the exact same altitude and is incapable of aligning itself to being weapons to bear on a prospective target.

 insaniak wrote:

Would it? I'll have to take your word for it. Apparently you know more about the aerodynamics of fictional aircraft than I do.

Who was talking about it going vertical, though?

Just that tactics shouldn't depend on the idea that every flying vehicle in the game is eternally moving at the exact same altitude and is incapable of aligning itself to being weapons to bear on a prospective target.

it can bring its weapons to bear on a target - just not one that it's basically directly over. you only have to move about 6" back to be able to shoot the landraider - is it so hard to just not move onto the landraider? and if the minimum move was what took you there, that's bad prior planning, or a clever move from the landraider. I've overshot a target before, just remember than overshooting the target doesn't necessarily mean moving past it, it means moving to where your guns can't see it, like right under the nose of the flier.

the aerodynamics are irrelevant, though - if the flier is as close to the ground as it's modeled, if it's facing downwards it's going to crash! and if you're pretending it's actually higher up, then how does the melta work?

do a test to see if it seems right - tilt the stormraven, that's 1" away from the landraider, until its guns are pointing at the landraider. assuming it's flying forwards, does it look like it's going to crash?

A flier as close to the ground as modeled is going to crash anyway... it doesn't even have enough height to clear small hills or large trees!

 some bloke wrote:
the aerodynamics are irrelevant, though - if the flier is as close to the ground as it's modeled, if it's facing downwards it's going to crash!

No it will not crash, Stormravens are a VToL aircraft.

and if you're pretending it's actually higher up, then how does the melta work?

Do not mix fluff and rules, it never ends well.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

do a test to see if it seems right - tilt the stormraven, that's 1" away from the landraider, until its guns are pointing at the landraider. assuming it's flying forwards, does it look like it's going to crash?

No it will not crash, because the Stormraven is a VToL aircraft.

Since Stormravens are a VToL aircraft they can fly with their nose facing the ground and not crash.

 some bloke wrote:
it can bring its weapons to bear on a target - just not one that it's basically directly over.

The 45 degree vertical arc on its weapons actually gives most flyers a fairly substantial blind spot to the front. Likewise for vehicles trying to shoot back at them.

Meanwhile, non-vehicle models are free to shoot straight up into the air if they please, due to not having constrained fire arcs.

the aerodynamics are irrelevant, though - if the flier is as close to the ground as it's modeled, if it's facing downwards it's going to crash! and if you're pretending it's actually higher up, then how does the melta work?

But that's exactly the point. If we're assuming that the model's actual height is just an abstraction, why does it suddenly matter when we want to fire the flyer's weapons?

do a test to see if it seems right - tilt the stormraven, that's 1" away from the landraider, until its guns are pointing at the landraider. assuming it's flying forwards, does it look like it's going to crash?

The stormraven looks like it's about to crash regardless of how you model it.

Fair enough. But it still stands that models can't have their positions changed during game, and the rules fully cover vertical traverse. so the flier has a blind spot.

Sure. As I pointed out in the 2nd post in this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

The 45 degree vertical arc on its weapons actually gives most flyers a fairly substantial blind spot to the front. Likewise for vehicles trying to shoot back at them.

Something I get extremely pedantic about in-game

"Why yes your vendetta is as close as possible to that unit, no it's lascannons do not have a 150 degree arc of fire."

So has anyone actually found rules that state the firing arcs are 3 dimentional?

Muhahaha, people laugh at my Sisters of battle exorcists, but now they will all fear me and my ONLY firing arc being straight up