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.

Ok, I am coming to really hate deffkopta bases. And this evening, I said to squig with it and just put the deffkoptas on the table without the bases and we just said we'll shoot at em using common sense. Didn't seem to make a bit of difference one way or the other, bases or no bases.....

Thoughts?

Does a deffkopta need a base to be legal?

I think the question to this is most likely yes.

Do you think anybody would really care?

prolly not?

Def not. Might want to stick them on a flying base without the stem, but that's pretty much only if you ever actually assault infantry with them. Which most people don't.

You can put there base on them with out using the part that puts them in the air. It will still be legal.

From page 3 of the Warhammer 40K rulebook under the heading "Bases"

"Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."

Also note that the stem is a part of the flying base. According to the rules you can not omit the stem and just use the circular part of the flying base.

Yeah, you need a base for it. Having the thing scooting across the table isn't really gonna fly in some circles.

But once that black disk is on the ground, you can do whatever you want to it! The flying stem isn't required, just like how you don't need your troops to be in combat poses. As long as it follows WYSIWYG, you can have the ork doing back flips for all anybody will care. That might actually be cool though...

-cgmckenzie

But what if you put the stem on sideways? Or on top of the model?

BRB pg 3 "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base..."

You can all the fiddly bits sticking out a couple inches and it won't matter. This rule allows for a measure of consistency in game play without hindering your ability to model the hell outta your figures!

-cgmckenzie

Similar question...

Deffkopta on a gun drone base...this is a no-no by the BRB but do people really care that much about the smaller base size?

Anvildude wrote:But what if you put the stem on sideways? Or on top of the model?

What if you do? What if I bring epic sized whirlwinds? There a literally millions of way to abuse the rules if you want to go down the road of allowing modeling for advantage. Do the rules allow it? Well there is kind of implicit agreement in the rules that conversions are part of the game, but then again the rules never flatly come out and say you're allowed to convert your models...so again, this really comes down to how much do you want to win your games of toy soldiers?

And more importantly, why is it even worth ever discussing?





(and yes, this video is a joke).

The stem is an integral part of the flying base. What allows you to use only half of a model's base? Can I legally mount an Imperial Guard HWT on a 60mm base that I cut in two and was only using one half of? I don't think so. It does not matter if it comes in two pieces due to manufacturing restraints, you require both the circular base and the stem to have a complete flying base.

You know the funny thing is, that was actually a fairly interesting conversion, as a sort of 'coming from below!' Stealer. (And they might, you know...) I mean, I've seen Crons modelled coming out of the dirt that were as short, so yeah...

But who's to say that you need to mount the vehicle on top of the stem? Assemble the base, stem and all, and then put the Kopta on it. The AoBR (heck, even the old, twin-rotor one) model for the Deffcopta has plenty of little holes and such that you could stick the stem through...


And you do know I'm being silly, right?

I have seen a conversion using the original base of the deffkopta where the rider(nob?) was off and looking like he was repairing/maintenance. It's perfectly legal, and while it might mess with line of sight from being shot at, it also gets the LOS disadvantage from being grounded.

In your example of destroying a beautiful HWT base and fielding half of it, you are changing the size of the base and, consequently, distance for assaults. The removal of the stem only changes vertical distance but not the size.

You are allowed to convert/scratch build your army. Ork FAQ has a question about weapons attachment points on a looted wagon. The rule says "Players are free to mount the weapons on their converted or scratch-built models however
they see fit (i.e. in a turret, sponson, hull or otherwise), as long as this is absolutely clear by looking at the model." Convert away, just be clear.

At the bottom of the bases section in BRB, it says elaborate bases and construction could interact differently with the rules, so check with your opponent first.

Easiest solution is often the best, and killing you is hard.

-cgmckenzie

in 4th edition, vertical height did not really matter much. There was no TLOS system, so having models be a different height was no big deal.

in 5th edition a model's height is very important. It determines what it gets cover from, and who it gives cover too.


Let us say you have a "suicide copter" (TL big shoota, buzzsaw) and mount is flat on the base.

This copter is probably more likely to deal damage in the assault phase than the shooting phase. It can now hide behind Vehicles and not be seen at all, or it can be behind infantry and get a cover save. the lost LOS in the shooting phase is less of a disadvantage than the increased difficulty of shooting at it.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL.

Being cheeky and building the model wrong (ei, not using the base in the manner intended) just tells me that you are not the kind of person that I will want to play. If you are bending the rules that much before the game, I do not want to know what you will try to pull once the game starts.


The flying stem is annoying, but either find a way to deal with the stem, or simply sell the model.


This is the same debate that a lot of people have about the Valkyrie and Storm Raven. the "Base" is the round black thing and the stem that comes with it.


There is also a big difference between the person who makes an interesting coversion, and a person who models to advantage.

example: Ork Repairing a deffcopta.

instead of having the copta on the ground, the copta is mounted on a lift, with the ork underneath of it, working on the bottom of the craft. It preserved the LOS of the original model, but it still allows for an interesting conversion as well.

Why go through all of the work of building interesting models, only to have your opponent either resent them for being modeled to your advantage, or refuse to play against them.

Sven:

You know thats the best point I have seen yet. Is that it affects line of sight. But not having the koptas mounted which puts them 2-4 inches in the air (taking into account base stem and kopta model height) really affects the dynamics of the TLOS aspect of the game. So Sven, I am going to try and fix up my DK bases which suck

The section on bases that states check with opponents was what we went with at the little mini bunker we play at And we pretty much went down this thought: the use of the kopta's rotor blades as a suitable reference for the base was decent enough.

Blue text hurts my eyes...

If you are using AOBR kotaz, one way to fix broken stems is modeling a big bomb out of greenstuff and punch the flying stem through it into its original hole. That way you got a big bomb and the stem becomes much more stable.

That's a good point sven. I would think that unless you are using your DKs to follow behind rhinos and hide behind hills the effect is almost negligible.

I did some FAQ reading and rereading of the BRB last night for this and it says bases are a must if it comes with the model. It mentions flying stems with skimmers but says distance is measured to the hull except in assaults, so it would change the dynamic of the game subtly.

If my opponent was dropping his koptas because he was trying to exploit that, I would be upset. If, however, he was doing it for aesthetics and was a good sport about it, a good time can still be had by all!

-cgmckenzie

Like I said at the bottom of the post, there is a big difference from a converter of cool looking things, to someone who models for advantage.


If you covert something, but during the game do not claim cover saver you should not have or whatever I would have no trouble playing you.

cgmckenzie wrote:In your example of destroying a beautiful HWT base and fielding half of it, you are changing the size of the base and, consequently, distance for assaults. The removal of the stem only changes vertical distance but not the size.

And where does it say that you can change the base if it only changes the 'vertical distance'? As you can see from the posts above, the 'vertical distance' can be just as important as the diameter of the base.

svendrex wrote:in 4th edition, vertical height did not really matter much. There was no TLOS system, so having models be a different height was no big deal.

Actually that is a very common misconception. 40K has always used true line of sight to some degree, it's just that in 4th edition a lot of people used the area terrain rules for all line of sight when they should have been using TLOS. That however is a discussion for another thread. Suffice it to say that changing the profile of the model can be used to gain an advantage for exactly the reasons you've posted.

Anvildude wrote:And you do know I'm being silly, right?

The problem is, people do suggest this sort of stuff in all seriousness, based on the vagueness of the rules on how to assemble models.


As a rule of thumb, from my experience most players don't care what you do with your bases, so long as you're not being obviously abusive or clearly just trying to weasel an advantage for yourself.

Change the length of the stem, and most people either won't notice, or won't care. Glue the stem on sideways, or sticking out of the model's head... and you'll probably find yourself standing alone at the table in short order.

You are allowed to change model height. If I want my IG snipers to lie down, I can do that. That will lower their heads, give them a lower profile and vastly change cover saves/TLOS. If that kind of modding is permitted for infantry, why is it not permitted for jetbikes?

Mind you, that requires using the WHFB cav bases but there are models sold that way from GW directly, so it must be permitted.

-cgmckenzie

No, you're actually not allowed to do that. Just because YOU do that doesn't mean that the rules allow it. It has been shown in this thread where the rules that prohibit changing the base are, now the onus is on YOU to show US where the rules are that allow changing portions of the base (Hint: There are no such rules).

I can do that. Look at the model in http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135 for an example of this. Thats a laying down guardsman on a cavalry base.

This model is legal in tourneys. I can convert a standing guardsman into this model using the cav bases and it will be legal.

I am arguing that the mod is legal because any change in terms of LOS and cover would go both ways for a "grounded" deffkopta and its targets, just as the LOS and cover for my prone guardsmen will. It has impaired LOS just as much its enemies and its targets get new cover saves previously unavailable to them because of its new position on the field.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:I can do that. Look at the model in http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135 for an example of this. Thats a laying down guardsman on a cavalry base.

That's a model that is supplied like that. It has no bearing on whether or not the rules allow you to modify a different model into the same pose.

I am arguing that the mod is legal because any change in terms of LOS and cover would go both ways for a "grounded" deffkopta and its targets, just as the LOS and cover for my prone guardsmen will.

That makes the mod potentially reasonable. It also has no bearing on whether or not it is legal.



But ultimately, again, this whole argument is pointless. If your modifying your models to give yourself some sort of perceived advantage in game, regardless of what the rules say you're going to run into problems when you put them on the table.

Your opponent isn't bound to play a game against you just because you happen to believe that the rules are on your side.

That's the thing, I don't think this mod would be an advantage. By lowering the height of the kopta, you greatly reduce LOS and, consequently, range of firing. On a board with primarily rolling hills, this greatly affects how your kopta interacts with everything else. It gets more cover but so do its opponents. Its not a bonus, not a detriment. Merely a changing of how the model interacts.

If a model is sold with a base and in a pose, I can modify my models to said base and similar pose. See the whole article on GW site encouraging scratch build/conversions. I am not saying I will use a coffee lid or bottle cap for the base, just using what is allocated for a model in my own scratch built. GW has always promoted scratching and conversions as a means to get that certain look you want and make vehicles/units that otherwise don't exist.

There is a point there somewhere...

-cgmckenzie

ps. a bit drunk(survived the apocalypse and all), please forgive anything horrible or rude above^^^

cgmckenzie wrote:That's the thing, I don't think this mod would be an advantage. By lowering the height of the kopta, you greatly reduce LOS and, consequently, range of firing.

Which is why I tend to refer to perceived advantage, rather than an actual one in these sorts of discussions.

The general reason that people want to lower their flight stems is to hide the model from sight behind lower obstacles.

If a model is sold with a base and in a pose, I can modify my models to said base and similar pose. See the whole article on GW site encouraging scratch build/conversions.

GW also encourage us to modify the rules to suit ourselves. That doesn't make our modified rules actual rules of the game.

Try and find a single rule in the rulebook that allows you to modify your models.


Yes, GW encourage it... but there are no rules covering it. And, as I've pointed out twice now, it wouldn't much matter if there were. You're still going to have to get your opponent to allow you to use it... and the more potentially abusive he sees it as being, the less chance there is of that happening.

The point simply being that if you choose to modify your models, make sure that what you do doesn't significantly alter how they perform in game, or be prepared for someone objecting to you using them. Most players won't care unless it's particularly over the top... but everyone has a slightly different opinion of just what that entails.

BRB pg 21 "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of the model always ignored..."

Basing is allowed in the rules and basing is a type of conversion. My model didn't come with hedgerows glued to the base.

Pg 73 under 'Crash Bang Wallop' "A few go even further and sculpt battle damage underneath the vehicle to complement this approach."

Sculpting is converting an existing model (rhino without damage) into one that doesn't exist (rhino with damage).

I am still rereading the entire book(I have too much time on my hands) and will edit as I find more examples of model modification. At last count, I have found 2.

-cgmckenzie

Yeah, the rules for bases are once again on page 3:

Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting your models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with the rules, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.[\quote]
So any modification of your model's base is not legal without your opponent's consent.

As for modifying the models themselves, there are likewise no rules that allow you to do so and therefore requires your opponent's consent to be used.

cgmckenzie wrote:BRB pg 21 "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of the model always ignored..."

That says that you ignore them if players have put them there. It doesn't actually allow it in the first place.

Pg 73 under 'Crash Bang Wallop' "A few go even further and sculpt battle damage underneath the vehicle to complement this approach."

'Some players do this' does not equal 'the rules actually allow you to do this...'

Read the entire book if it makes you feel better. I have a feeling you're blowing this up into a bigger issue than it actually is, though.

I am reading the entire book because I haven't done so in quite a while. Joining Dakka seem like as good a time as any to reread.

If the rule book says people do something and doesn't say its illegal, than it is fair game. Modeling and converting is both legal and encouraged, otherwise you get the same modeled armies fighting the same modeled armies.

If the only possible options for your armies come from what is shipped in the box, the game is incredibly limited and much of the players will have illegal armies. See kitbashing.

Anyway, i have better things to do than argue a rule that will never affect me, so I am ignoring this thread from now on. Infantry lists are truly liberating in that regard...

-cgmckenzie

So by your reasoning I could bring a hammer and smash all of your models and claim that I automatically win. Reread the rules, they almost always tell you what you can do and they only tell you what you can not do if it contradicts another rule.

To put it bluntly, 40K is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules permit. If they don't permit you to do something, then it is a safe bet that you can not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate