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.

Not sure if this is tactics or modelling...

Due to the sheer brokenness of the Vendetta, I've seen a lot of them around lately. They seem like really huge, impractical models. Now that I'm making my own, I'm considering cutting down the flying base stand to keep them lower to the table.

Anybody done this? Is this a bad idea? I could see the huge model needing that tall stand to fit around a lot of terrain, models, etc.

Out of the box it's about 5" high. I was thinking to cut it down closer to 3".

it says in the book your really not supposed to mess with the height of the model. You have to keep them as tall as the stand is in the box.

It's a bad idea. It asking for trouble with all those friggin citadel buildings out there being as tall as they are.

I think its kinda bad sportsmanship, and will/should get complaints. I dont cut my eldar tanks bases down to half in inch high even though 5th edition screwed our skimmers over.

Enron wrote:it says in the book your really not supposed to mess with the height of the model. You have to keep them as tall as the stand is in the box.

Exactly you communist!

Why would someone with the name of a ruthless corporation be a communist?

I wouldn't have any problem with your method.

Hadn't ocurred to me that it was a rules problem... I've had to replace a lot of the flying base posts for my Tau because they break (I used aluminum tube). That's def "messing with the bases" altho there are some pretty short posts in the box.

Shouldn't be a problem. Makes it easier to melta and still usually to big to claim cover.

Enron wrote:it says in the book your really not supposed to mess with the height of the model. You have to keep them as tall as the stand is in the box.

It says that you can't mount models on a smaller base. So if you work out the formula, you can increase the size of the flat base as you proportionally reduce the height of the flying stand.

You might want to right down the formula and have it in a presentable form if you encounter any horrific rules-lawyers.

(Actually, I might make this formula. Should I compare the Area of the base with the Height, or the Volume of the clear flying stand bit?)

Edit: Actually, where are these rules about basing? Because, under the Models & Units section of the rulebook, it says: Some players like to mount their models on impressive scenic bases. As mounting you models on different sized bases might affect the way they interact with opponents, make sure before the game that your opponent does not mind this.

It says nothing under the rules for skimmers. It says nothing anywhere.

it may be a real issue for some players..to play safe keep it as it is.....if you confine your play to your FLGS and no one says "nay" then it's ok, but in an official tourney it may be a problem...

my 2 cents..I wouldn't mind personally..but I know of some people who would...

I'm sorry, but what kind of person would get out their tape measure, and rant that your base was 'two inches shorter than it should be'?

No-one I've ever met. And no-one I'd ever want to meet.

Who would complain? Certain sorts of guys who want to be playing on the top table in the final game of any given tournament, that's who. Not most of them mind you, or even a lot of them, but a handful anyway. Doorknob humpers for the most part.

Ketara wrote:I'm sorry, but what kind of person would get out their tape measure, and rant that your base was 'two inches shorter than it should be'?

No-one I've ever met. And no-one I'd ever want to meet.

Everyone, because it would be obvious that your base is significantly shorter than it should be.
One thing about valkyries is that is is difficult to get them into cover. With a 3" base finding cover becomes a lot more possible and some people might not like that.

ph34r wrote:Everyone, because it would be obvious that your base is significantly shorter than it should be.
One thing about valkyries is that is is difficult to get them into cover. With a 3" base finding cover becomes a lot more possible and some people might not like that.

Exactly. The Valk/Vendy is truly a bargain of mobility and utility but pays for it by being very visible. If you shorten the flight stand, the way the model interacts with terrain and other units changes significantly.

what do you guys think about cutting off the tail? i'm considering buying a valk or two but they're HUGE and i'm already lugging the double size GW case when i bust out my IG. to save space, i'd cut off the tail so it would fit with removable wings in a GW case.

warboss wrote:what do you guys think about cutting off the tail? i'm considering buying a valk or two but they're HUGE and i'm already lugging the double size GW case when i bust out my IG. to save space, i'd cut off the tail so it would fit with removable wings in a GW case.

Cutting off the tail? Never heard anyone suggest something that radical before. Well, the big question is if you mean "cutting off so that they can be reattached by magnets etc " or "cutting off permanently". The former is OK but the latter would fall under the idea of modelling for advantage which is not OK. A Valk/Vendy without a tail is a much smaller target.

I own four Valk/Vendys myself and know that transporting them takes a lot of space. It is just a fact that us Airborne commanders have to live with.

no, just cutting off. i figure if i do that and make the wings removable, i can fit two valks in a normal GW hard case. as for modelling for advantage, i'm not sure how that's an advantage. for weapons, you measure to the hull to see if you have range and calling the tail a part of the hull is like calling the spikey wings on a DE raider the hull personally. is there some other advantage that i'm not realizing? it doesn't affect assault the valk as it is almost always going to be 5" up in the air due to the stand.

It means they can move onto the board from reserves and not have to either move faster than 6" or pivot at an awkward angle. That's definitely modeling for advantage. So long as you're lenient with it though (ie, don't ever hang where their tails would be off of the edge of the board) I don't think anyone will mind though.

Or you can do the smart thing and ditch your GW cases! I have 4 ven/valks + a buttload of other stuff and it all fits nicely in one of these with one of the double-wide foam trays added instead of some of their default trays.

A-P wrote:

warboss wrote:what do you guys think about cutting off the tail? i'm considering buying a valk or two but they're HUGE and i'm already lugging the double size GW case when i bust out my IG. to save space, i'd cut off the tail so it would fit with removable wings in a GW case.

Cutting off the tail? Never heard anyone suggest something that radical before. Well, the big question is if you mean "cutting off so that they can be reattached by magnets etc " or "cutting off permanently". The former is OK but the latter would fall under the idea of modelling for advantage which is not OK. A Valk/Vendy without a tail is a much smaller target.

Ah, but the tail doesn't count as the 'hull or turret', so you can't even shoot at it anyway. So it's not making it a smaller target, so it's not using modelling for advantage.

Edit: Damn, beaten. Didn't see that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, since base sizes are measured in diametre (25mm base, 40mm base, etc.), this provides a direct cm to cm relationship, which is good because it means less complicated maths than an Area:Height ratio.

The Valkyrie base is 12cm long and 9.5cm wide, and since it has rotational symmetry, that means it should have an average diametre of 10.75cm. The flying stand is 12.7 (exactly 5 inches) off base (I'm discounting the height of the black base as the top of the clear bit of the base goes into the Valkyrie). As such, to reduce the height from 5 inches to 3 inches would mean to times 5 inches by 3/5. Thus, we must times the diametre of the base by 5/3, which means that you can have a circular base with 17.9cm diametre, or a base in a similar shape to the current one that is 20cm long and 15.3cm wide. (or a rectangular base where the length and width add up to 21.5 cm) This would mean that although the shape has changed, the size has not and thus NO ONE is able to argue about it.

Rules lawyering can be fun!

grankobot wrote:It means they can move onto the board from reserves and not have to either move faster than 6" or pivot at an awkward angle. That's definitely modeling for advantage. So long as you're lenient with it though (ie, don't ever hang where their tails would be off of the edge of the board) I don't think anyone will mind though.

Or you can do the smart thing and ditch your GW cases! I have 4 ven/valks + a buttload of other stuff and it all fits nicely in one of these with one of the double-wide foam trays added instead of some of their default trays.

nah, i actually like the GW cases. after 5 moves throughout college and beyond, my minis in the case have always stayed safe and that gets a bit of loyalty (to the case, NOT GW corporate!) from me. i'll replace the foam but not the hard shell unless it breaks, especially since i've spent the last few months trading to get the double sized cases.

as for coming onto the board, do the rules say something specifically about a whole model not being on the board? i don't recall them mentioning it. also, with the valk, you'll measure on the base so whether or not i extend/shorten/get rid of the tail, the valk still makes it on the table.

warboss wrote:

grankobot wrote:It means they can move onto the board from reserves and not have to either move faster than 6" or pivot at an awkward angle. That's definitely modeling for advantage. So long as you're lenient with it though (ie, don't ever hang where their tails would be off of the edge of the board) I don't think anyone will mind though.

Or you can do the smart thing and ditch your GW cases! I have 4 ven/valks + a buttload of other stuff and it all fits nicely in one of these with one of the double-wide foam trays added instead of some of their default trays.

nah, i actually like the GW cases. after 5 moves throughout college and beyond, my minis in the case have always stayed safe and that gets a bit of loyalty (to the case, NOT GW corporate!) from me. i'll replace the foam but not the hard shell unless it breaks, especially since i've spent the last few months trading to get the double sized cases.

as for coming onto the board, do the rules say something specifically about a whole model not being on the board? i don't recall them mentioning it. also, with the valk, you'll measure on the base so whether or not i extend/shorten/get rid of the tail, the valk still makes it on the table.

if your group follows, uses the adepticon faq, this section co vers it nicely:

"RB.94D.02 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they
cannot move on from the table edge without
moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles
forced to move faster than combat speed on the
turn they move onto the table?
A: No, if a vehicle is so large it cannot totally fit onto the
table when moving onto the table at combat speed, players
are allowed to leave the back end of the vehicle hanging
off the edge of the table [clarification]. If players are
concerned about their model falling off the table they can
mark the spot where it is supposed to be and then
temporarily move the model fully onto the table.
Note: While a vehicle is partially ‘hanging off the table’,
any access points off the table may not be used and any
blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if
the blast is technically off the table."

If not, then you guys have to come up with your own rule for this....

that's pretty much what we've been doing (we use the adepticon faq). in addition, if a weapon of a big vehicle is "off table" then you can't fire it. i just didn't recall seeing anything *GW official* and the other poster seemed to imply there was something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

freddieyu1 wrote:...

5th ed W/L/D (latest codex)
23/1/3

wow, you must not play a lot of kill point missions! those tend to cream the IG even with the new codex.

warboss wrote:that's pretty much what we've been doing (we use the adepticon faq). in addition, if a weapon of a big vehicle is "off table" then you can't fire it. i just didn't recall seeing anything *GW official* and the other poster seemed to imply there was something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

freddieyu1 wrote:...

5th ed W/L/D (latest codex)
23/1/3

wow, you must not play a lot of kill point missions! those tend to cream the IG even with the new codex.

actually I do.....we do roll off the scenarios as per usual on friendly games, so I get KP missions, and I have already joined a couple of tourneys (including our local GT, you can check out my batrep on the 7th galen in the batrep section, and it had a KP scenario)......I just kill more of him than he does to me, at least so far!!!......

Hmm you've made think about my KP games...so far I have been fortunate enough to fight an army versus mine that is really optimized versus IG when it comes to the KP (for ex ork footslog ork) missions, except for 1 time in a mini tourney when I fought a dark angel terminator army..it ended up a draw, pretty frustrating since I killed 80% of her army (yes my opponent was one of our rare female players) and yet it was a draw due to KP....