Height advantage

[Mr Mystery]

In Cityfight, attacks on the top armour of vehicles resolved against it's Side Armour value.

[Deacon Ix]

Why not just add the height to the range of the weapon?

[Mr Mystery]

Not sure what you mean on that one? You measure from model to model?

[Deacon Ix]

Say you have a marine with a bolter on top of a 6" high building the range on his bolter would be 30".

It makes sense as currently range is measures model to model so pythagoras being what it is a model on top of a structure currently has a shorter effective range than one at the bottom.

With projectile weapons (like bows in days of yore) the height does increase the range, energy weapons probably not so much but it depends upon how you fluff the tech.

[Tepogue]

Say you have a marine with a bolter on top of a 6" high building the range on his bolter would be 30".
.

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

There is a reason the ranges in 40k are drastically below what they should be for the scale.

[CoffeeGrunt]

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

I don't think +6" really makes a difference to a 72" range weapon...

[Deacon Ix]

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

There is a reason the ranges in 40k are drastically below what they should be for the scale.

It is entirely possible that that could happen, if it did the 2 questions I would ask in that situation are:- 1) What happened to teh equal deployment of terrain and 2) do I really want to be playing against some one like that

The above aside I have mulled it over and as Coffee has pointed out the percentage increase on various weapons does make it a little silly (inferno pistols with silly ranges :-s)

so my revised idea would be to measure the higher models range horizontally rather than base to base which theoretically would give an advantage of a lower model.

But I realise that as I type this that it ANOTHER rule in a set which is already overly complicated and in reality I doubt I could be ars...

[Haighus]

There was the Plunging Fire strategem from the Cities of Death expansion that gave the army taking it the benefit of reducing all enemy cover saves by -1 when shooting from at least one level higher than the target (for generalisation this would be 3" higher than the model base-height to base height) and ignoring Obscured on vehicles on a 4+. That could be incorporated into the core rules quite easily I feel.

[Captain Bubonicus]

The funny thing is, firing from a greater height with a projectile weapon actually shifts the point of aim and makes it a bit harder to hit if you don't allow for it. You're forced to "aim low" or risk firing right over the target's head!

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman%27s_rule[/url]

[Haighus]

The Rifleman's rule looks like something that only really needs to be applied to sniper weapons and maybe longer ranged battle rifle shots though, and is something I would expect to be automatically incorporated into the advanced targeting systems available to most of the myriad races of the 40k universe (Orks aren't very accurate anyway). Also not relevant to lasweaponry. Most cover not being very effective when fired at from a higher angle (such as barricades) definitely seems like a thing though.