How do you run your stormraven?

[Zhukov]

Does the flyer have to be on the base? I can simply take it away when I'm hovering. Helps with cover saves too :-P

 

And if it does have to be on the base, what's stopping me from modelling it glued to the base, omitting the clear plastic stand?

You can get advantages with modelling your Flier on a non-supplied base:

-Easier cover saves.

-Greatly reducing the minimal distance at which you can draw LoS with your weapons.

 

So it's not just the fact that you can score every objective. For these reasons various tournaments explicitly state that you can't put your flier on a different base or cutt off the standard. If your gaming group encourages modelling for advantage, then by all means go for it. So what's stopping you? Could be quite a lot of things, among them being a sense of sportmanship, honesty or plain having to follow the rules of a certain rulespack. Or nothing will stop you and you can do whatever you want!

[Ishagu]

I would never do it, but at the same time I wouldn't tell someone their hovering flyer can't score an objective.

 

Flying vehicles have bases which makes them unique from typical tanks and what not. In view of assaults being measured against the base, I would measure objectives from there as well.

 

It's an example of poor gw rule writing. In all fairness when I play objective missions the objectives aren't flat markers so it's not really an issue.

[thade]

Good sportsmanship is precisely the solution across the board for rules disputes. Consider these two inverse scenarios:

1. Player A argues over a rule interpretation in order to gain an advantage for Player A (or to effectively handicap the opponent).
2. Player A argues over a rule interpretation in order to grant an advantage to Player B (or to effectively handicap oneself).

Functionally these scenarios are equivalent: the difference is selfishness. This is the kind of thing we all know, and when we see it happen (rare though it may be) we all appreciate it. Scenario 2 is the one I find myself in the most often, because, frankly:

• The rules writing leaves much to be desires (the only thing we all agree on uniformly here).
• Fighting uphill is more challenging (and thus more fun) than fighting downhill; harder fights feel better to win than easy ones.
• I'd rather be the guy known for being fun to game against than the guy that argues over rules all the time.

While I recommend Scenario 2, it's not really valuable to insinuate that specific other players (i.e. your fellow Frater here) engage too often in Scenario 1; that's just flamebait, which I've already asked you all to ease off on in here. So, please ease off on the directed statements and insinuations. <3

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Ishagu: Would you let your opponent shoot at targets that aren't within his Flyer's weapons' arc of sight (due to elevation)? To me its all part and parcel: if the logic is that "well, a hovering flyer would be able to contest an objective because it could over closer to the ground" (which makes sense, I'll admit), then logically, a hovering Flyer would be able to shoot at stuff that is out of its arcs too.

[Adeptus]

Would you let your opponent shoot at targets that aren't within his Flyer's weapons' arc of sight (due to elevation)? To me its all part and parcel: if the logic is that "well, a hovering flyer would be able to contest an objective because it could over closer to the ground" (which makes sense, I'll admit), then logically, a hovering Flyer would be able to shoot at stuff that is out of its arcs too.

Yes, of course I'd let someone fire a weapon that, due to elevation, was out of arc. Thats just sensible and sporting. What kind of person wouldn't allow that?

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Yes, of course I'd let someone fire a weapon that, due to elevation, was out of arc. Thats just sensible and sporting. What kind of person wouldn't allow that?

 

 

Someone who follows the rules, since RAW, you can't, even though physically, you should be able to.

 

My point being that there are a ton of things that just don't really make any sense but going around and changing the core rules tends to lead to massive cluster****s where no one is really playing the same game anymore. I run into that a lot in my area and it is quite the PITA.

[Ishagu]

Saying that something measures scoring distance from the base isn't what I'd call altering the core rules...

[Adeptus]

 

 

Yes, of course I'd let someone fire a weapon that, due to elevation, was out of arc. Thats just sensible and sporting. What kind of person wouldn't allow that?

 

 

Someone who follows the rules, since RAW, you can't, even though physically, you should be able to.

 

My point being that there are a ton of things that just don't really make any sense but going around and changing the core rules tends to lead to massive cluster****s where no one is really playing the same game anymore. I run into that a lot in my area and it is quite the PITA.

 

 

The person who wouldn't allow a flyer to shoot at a ground target because the base doesn't allow the model to alter it's altitude or angle, even when hovering, is needlessly uptight with the rules and frankly, should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable. The base is supposed to be a neat little scenic addition, not a limiting factor in the way the game plays.

 

Once, during an Apoc game, an opponent got his jimmies rustled because a Manta had to move some terrain and models out of the way before it could move, due to it's enormous base. Let's just think about that for a second. A model with a 4 foot wingspan requires a suitably broad base to prevent it's painfully expensive bulk from toppling over. Should we stick rigidly to the rules and not allow this model to enter play, because it's base is more than 12" square and there's no where on the table to put it?

 

The answer is obviously NO, we don't leave it stuck in reserves because there are no clear areas on the table to place it, we just shuffle some :cuss around and get on with the game. Likewise, it's perfectly sensible to assume that a flyer can alter it's attitude or altitude to engage models on the ground, and anyone who insisted you couldn't do that is taking their toy soldiers FAR too seriously, and would probably have more fun playing DotA2 or some other ultra-competitive game. Personally I've always removed my Rave from it's base to better help me remember that it is hovering, and will continue to do so. Anyone who really wants to argue the point during a game can just enjoy a free win because I'm not going to waste my time arguing about some toy soldiers with another grown man.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Saying that something measures scoring distance from the base isn't what I'd call altering the core rules...

Considering that the rules specificaly tell you to ignore the base for everything but assaults, what would you call it then?

The person who wouldn't allow a flyer to shoot at a ground target because the base doesn't allow the model to alter it's altitude or angle, even when hovering, is needlessly uptight with the rules and frankly, should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable. The base is supposed to be a neat little scenic addition, not a limiting factor in the way the game plays.

Again, that's fine in theory, but where do you draw the line? There are just SO MANY damn situations that don't make sense that if you "fix" them all, are you having playing 40k anymore?

Once, during an Apoc game, an opponent got his jimmies rustled because a Manta had to move some terrain and models out of the way before it could move, due to it's enormous base. Let's just think about that for a second. A model with a 4 foot wingspan requires a suitably broad base to prevent it's painfully expensive bulk from toppling over. Should we stick rigidly to the rules and not allow this model to enter play, because it's base is more than 12" square and there's no where on the table to put it?

The answer is obviously NO, we don't leave it stuck in reserves because there are no clear areas on the table to place it, we just shuffle some around and get on with the game.

That's really not the same thing at all.

Comments in red.

[Ishagu]

We've seriously got off topic.

I'll finish this by saying, all of these situations come under what is obviously "the spirit of the game"

 

They can be nitpicked, but the flyer can also be removed from the base, so there's no point debating it.

 

I wonder, do people feel the space marine flyers are op and want to try to nerf them?

[Prot]

Like I've said, repeating myself here, but the intent is so clear to me, but the height of a base just makes the whole thing so muddy. The solution is so easy with a 3" objective height (or raising them off the ground.) 

 

Ironically I personally think the biggest issue here is that GW still haven't addressed it specifically. It's clear by this thread and so many others out there that this is an ongoing issue. It's incredible to me they won't make it 'official'. 

 

Seeing as how we are using objectives that validate hovering flyers, I do see some value in adding the Hurricane bolters for those moments when you have stuff to clear out, and your flyer is looking to steal something important.... 

 

But it's still an expense I can't seem to fit in most my lists, so I'm in the process of magnetizing them right now....

 

I still haven't glued on the primary (top) turret though. I feel Lascanons make the most sense, but it does not seem... magnet friendly for swapping las out for assault cannons. 

[Zhukov]

I still haven't glued on the primary (top) turret though. I feel Lascanons make the most sense, but it does not seem... magnet friendly for swapping las out for assault cannons. 

Assault Cannon is the superior weapon overall to be honest (apply math against a wide range of targets and you'll see). The Stormraven is fast enough so that the range difference doesn't matter as much, it makes it a pretty obvious choice in my opinion.

 

 

The person who wouldn't allow a flyer to shoot at a ground target because the base doesn't allow the model to alter it's altitude or angle, even when hovering, is needlessly uptight with the rules and frankly, should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable. The base is supposed to be a neat little scenic addition, not a limiting factor in the way the game plays.

 

A person who insists on altering the rules so that it fits their view of how the game is supposed to play should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable.

 

Seriously, think a little harder or don't comment at all if all you can do is being offensive towards people who don't hold your views.

[Prot]

 

I still haven't glued on the primary (top) turret though. I feel Lascanons make the most sense, but it does not seem... magnet friendly for swapping las out for assault cannons. 

Assault Cannon is the superior weapon overall to be honest (apply math against a wide range of targets and you'll see). The Stormraven is fast enough so that the range difference doesn't matter as much, it makes it a pretty obvious choice in my opinion.

 

 

 

After using the stormtalon for a while I agree it's a good, flexible weapon. But applying the vehicle to a Grey Knight army is what's got me thinking... I mean it would be so nice to go with the anti-tank option. Especially against Astra where I anticipate real issues..... The Multi Melta seems pretty standard on the front though but I hear 'friction' is good enough for weapon swaps.

 

 

 

Quote

The person who wouldn't allow a flyer to shoot at a ground target because the base doesn't allow the model to alter it's altitude or angle, even when hovering, is needlessly uptight with the rules and frankly, should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable. The base is supposed to be a neat little scenic addition, not a limiting factor in the way the game plays.

 

 

A person who insists on altering the rules so that it fits their view of how the game is supposed to play should find some other way to spend their time because they're just going to make everyone they play against miserable.

Seriously, think a little harder or don't comment at all if all you can do is being offensive towards people who don't hold your views.

 

You're both very strongly opinionated. The fact is the thread is going to get locked unless we can just accept differences in opinion here and please move on. :)

 

Just play it the way you want to, and heading into a tournament, just double check how it's going to be played before you make your lists. Can we just agree on that much for the sake of the thread?

 

This thread has been really good for me because I had my kit 3/4 built and stalled out on it a month or so ago.

 

NOW I look at think wow.... Assault Cannons COULD be the way to go. MAYBE I should magnetize some Hurricane's on this baby.... What about considering the load out for Stormwing which I think gives us a very cool, perfectly legal loadout for a lethal Airforce? 

[Deschenus Maximus]

They can be nitpicked, but the flyer can also be removed from the base, so there's no point debating it.

 

Where does it say that you can do that?

I wonder, do people feel the space marine flyers are op and want to try to nerf them?

 

Considering I have 3 Stormravens, 3 Storm Talons and a Nephilim, I don't know why I would want to do that...

 

Comments in red.

 

@Prot: I'd magnetise everything you can, tbh. Maybe this edition, hurricane bolters aren't so hot, but who knows, maybe next edition they'll be the bee's knees. You'll be glad to have taken the time now.

[Zhukov]

I mean it would be so nice to go with the anti-tank option. Especially against Astra where I anticipate real issues.....

Thing is, the Assault Cannon is arguably just as good as the lascannon, even against Av14. It inflicts more HP on average (0.40 versus 0.30), but the lascannon has a chance to kill a vehicle in 1 shot due to being ap2. Against lower Av the odds turn more into favour of the Assault Cannon obviously.

You're both very strongly opinionated. The fact is the thread is going to get locked unless we can just accept differences in opinion here and please move on.

I hope you realise I was merely turning his own statement against him to show how easy it is to, well, turn around that statement. I'm also simply arguing the RAW case in this thread, which is wholly different than calling people basicly miserable players because they don't hold the same RAI view. The latter which is what he did.

[Acebaur]

Alright people, drop the Objective/Hover issue. Agree to disagree or take it to the OR(where I believe it has already been discussed, so use that thread before opening a new one). 

 

 

On topic, I like the Assault cannon if you plan to run the Hurricanes. It truly does make it a flying LRC at that point because you can target infantry with the AC and Hurricanes or you can target armor with the MM, AC, and any missiles you may have. It's what makes an AC so useful is it's dual purpose. I'd almost always go for the MM on the nose mount though because for one thing it's hard to get twin-linked melta shots in a marine army and two it's easy to get in range with the Raven's speed. 

[Prot]

 

On topic, I like the Assault cannon if you plan to run the Hurricanes. It truly does make it a flying LRC at that point because you can target infantry with the AC and Hurricanes or you can target armor with the MM, AC, and any missiles you may have. It's what makes an AC so useful is it's dual purpose. I'd almost always go for the MM on the nose mount though because for one thing it's hard to get twin-linked melta shots in a marine army and two it's easy to get in range with the Raven's speed. 

 

This is true. I was starting to really think about the missile launcher, but a linked Melta is truly a rare thing, and high potential blow up factor on a tank. 

[thade]

@Prot: I'd magnetise everything you can, tbh. Maybe this edition, hurricane bolters aren't so hot, but who knows, maybe next edition they'll be the bee's knees. You'll be glad to have taken the time now.

This x100. Not only do the rules change across editions, but even within them with FAQs, Errata, and even our local meta. Magnets and pins grant computer-game style flexibility with our models. I mag and pin just about everything I can, especially on vehicles.

[Prot]

Okay, I'm taking a break from the Stormraven. 

 

I messed up. It's a weird thing to explain. I put the rear fuselage that the tail wing attaches to upside down! It fits fine, and I couldn't tell the difference until the last step. I put a modular piece on top which sits right behind the upper turret. The result is that the top piece doesn't sit flush on the tail. UGH! lol

 

The issue is the tail has a little capacitor/pipe thingy. I've partially knifed it off... and will be greenstuffing the top on.

 

THEN after that I will see if I can magnetize the Assault Cannons. (those are very small attachment areas on that turret.)

[Ishagu]

Oh no! Aww man, I feel for you. I screwed up TWO Dreadknights... You don't want to know what I had to go through :-(

[Emicus]

@Prot. I reckon the way you want to go about magnetising the lascannons/assault cannons is by not putting in the rod bit in the first place. Slam a magnet in each hole, drill out the bit in the guns where the pin is supposed to be, magnets, done!

​Sounds like you've got a bit of a headache with the assembly there, that sucks :( Hope you can get it sorted without too much work.

[jeffersonian000]

Never glue the turret. It's easy to magnetize it so it stays in place and still rotates.

 

SJ

[Prot]

I give up.

 

After hours of green stuffing the screw up on the upper modular piece I just glued Assault cannons in place. lol Truly I lost my patience. 

 

I did however magnetize side hatches with Hurricanes/doors. Such a simple model gone so wrong...! I am going to be content with this build because my frustration level has reached a 'Draigo' level on the awesome scale. 

 

I'm just going to paint it now, and every time the Assault Cannon fails I can now blame Zhukov! lol

 

Otherwise at least I have the flexibility of the side mounts and front mounts. :)

[Ishagu]

I would have stuck with the Las Cannon... Gk have so few ap2, high strength shooting where as rending weapons are plentiful (psy cannons)

[Acebaur]

Well the hole that the turret goes in is the same size as the Razorback slot so you can always use a TTLC from that if you needed to run a LC instead of the AC. Also no need to magatize the top turret any more than the AC on the LRC. It's always upright after all ;)