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.

Poll isnt about weather you think its a sportsman/kind/friendly thing to do..but if its actually LEGAL or ILLEGAL

Yes its legal ... i would also say it was legal to till them as you moved them. Only stipulation is you don't move them at any other time. (IMHO this falls under pivoting)

I mean actually making it so that the vehicles actually sit on said bases tilted in a way to block line of sight to units directly behind them..

It would be legal to put piles of green stuff on the top and bottom of the Devilfish so high that you could not see a Monolith behind it. But there's no way you could get away with this at a tournament.

intended purpose would be to hide battle suits, not just give them cover. said suits behind right on the butt of the vehicles

Again i say there's nothing wrong with this. Might get you a black mark for sportsmanship but such is life.

Legal, yes. But that is deliberately modeling for an advantage, and I (casual gamer) wouldn't want to play against it. On the other hand, if you hadn't modeled for advantage, and asked if the tank blocked LOS, I'd have probably said yes anyway.

This question comes from people saying, ooo i can see the tip of your guys head, or i can see a toe of 1 model from these guys.. so i kind of see this as a response to people not being casual themselves..which is fine as long as i can find legal things to do back lol

Modeling for the advantage is not legal IMO.

Altering the way the model sits on the base to gain an in game advantage constitutes modeling for the advantage. I would not play a friendly game like this, and would score a zero on any sportsmanship consideration. Also, I would even question the TO if it should even be allowed, which I think they would give a resounding "no".

Its Legal but I have to say its also a bit sad. Sorry but Its a little desperate and I personally wouldn't play against it. But if your gaming group dont have a problem with it
and all do similar things then its entirely your choice.

Dracos wrote:Modeling for the advantage is not legal IMO.

Altering the way the model sits on the base to gain an in game advantage constitutes modeling for the advantage. I would not play a friendly game like this, and would score a zero on any sportsmanship consideration. Also, I would even question the TO if it should even be allowed, which I think they would give a resounding "no".

Its not in any way modifying the model itself, its at the model owners disgression how they actually mount them on bases/stands etc (within certain limitations) im asking if say..mounting a vehicle on a 1/2'' flying base, but then having the vehicle sit at certain way ON the legal base for a certain in game result is legal or not? I admit its definitely a grey area

-This question comes from people saying, ooo i can see the tip of your guys head, or i can see a toe of 1 model from these guys..

Ah well, thats a completely different story. Your opponents are actually breaking the RAI- you have to be able to see a significant amount of the model, not just one toe, to be able to target it. Therefore, you don't have to model for advantage. Just point them to page 16 of the rulebook.

belial wrote:Its Legal but I have to say its also a bit sad. Sorry but Its a little desperate and I personally wouldn't play against it. But if your gaming group dont have a problem with it
and all do similar things then its entirely your choice.

May i ask why you wouldnt play against it? If it breaks los for you shooting directly behind the vehicle, it also breaks los for anything shooting from that location as well

CadianXV wrote:-you have to be able to see a significant amount of the model, not just one toe, to be able to target it. Therefore, you don't have to model for advantage. Just point them to page 16 of the rulebook.

Really?
The part that says "to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit"? I daresay "foot" is not on the list, but "significant" is not either. Seeing just a head is good enough which can be about the same size.

TopC wrote:

belial wrote:Its Legal but I have to say its also a bit sad. Sorry but Its a little desperate and I personally wouldn't play against it. But if your gaming group dont have a problem with it
and all do similar things then its entirely your choice.

May i ask why you wouldnt play against it? If it breaks los for you shooting directly behind the vehicle, it also breaks los for anything shooting from that location as well

because crisis suits can jump out and back behind said tank.

Incorrect, you simply need to draw line of sight to the main body. The BGB says head, torso, arms and legs count - to me the hand and foot are part of the arm and leg respectively. Seeing "1 toe" is seeing a leg, thus you can shoot it.

edit: Sorry, this was directed at CadianXV.

kirsanth wrote:

CadianXV wrote:-you have to be able to see a significant amount of the model, not just one toe, to be able to target it. Therefore, you don't have to model for advantage. Just point them to page 16 of the rulebook.

Really?
The part that says "to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit"? I daresay "foot" is not on the list, but "significant" is not either. Seeing just a head is good enough which can be about the same size.

I'm a RAI player; I completely agree that 'significant' isn't written, so I wouldn't argue against a whole head. But half a head, or a toe of a battlesuit I would.

Edit: Because I can't spell

TopC wrote:Its not in any way modifying the model itself, its at the model owners disgression how they actually mount them on bases/stands etc (within certain limitations) im asking if say..mounting a vehicle on a 1/2'' flying base, but then having the vehicle sit at certain way ON the legal base for a certain in game result is legal or not? I admit its definitely a grey area

The problem is how are you going to make the model sit differently than it naturally does without altering the model or stand?

Maybe its just me, but the models all seem to sit at a more or less fixed position on the base if it is not altered. Am I wrong about this?

Dracos wrote:Incorrect, you simply need to draw line of sight to the main body. The BGB says head, torso, arms and legs count - to me the hand and foot are part of the arm and leg respectively. Seeing "1 toe" is seeing a leg, thus you can shoot it.

edit: Sorry, this was directed at CadianXV.

Arm= shoulder to wrist
Leg = hip to ankle
head= head
Torso= Shoulders down to waist

hands are hands/feet are feet..just because they attach to arms and legs doesnt mean they are arms and legs?

and in general for the thread...

So mounting them how you want, IS technically legal? Even if it is a shady thing to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:

TopC wrote:Its not in any way modifying the model itself, its at the model owners disgression how they actually mount them on bases/stands etc (within certain limitations) im asking if say..mounting a vehicle on a 1/2'' flying base, but then having the vehicle sit at certain way ON the legal base for a certain in game result is legal or not? I admit its definitely a grey area

The problem is how are you going to make the model sit differently than it naturally does without altering the model or stand?

Maybe its just me, but the models all seem to sit at a more or less fixed position on the base if it is not altered. Am I wrong about this?

thing is if all you can see over the landed fish is the heads..putting them on even a 1/4'' inch base (it mounts int he center) then tilting the fish just a couple degrees will block sight to the legs under it, as well as the heads over it..

Interesting TopC, but I always included the hands/feet as well. The dictionary definition seems to agree that they hands/feet are not part of the arms/legs.

Alright, no targeting hands or feet then.

Because an explosive tipped mini missile (aka Bolter Round) can't hurt you if it hits your foot, but it it hits you 2mm above your ankle you are fethed.

dayve110 wrote:

TopC wrote:

belial wrote:Its Legal but I have to say its also a bit sad. Sorry but Its a little desperate and I personally wouldn't play against it. But if your gaming group dont have a problem with it
and all do similar things then its entirely your choice.

May i ask why you wouldnt play against it? If it breaks los for you shooting directly behind the vehicle, it also breaks los for anything shooting from that location as well

because crisis suits can jump out and back behind said tank.

Exactly. And I would imagine that you wouldn't model it so your gun turrets still pointed ahead and not into the ground 2 inches in front of your own tank.

belial wrote:

dayve110 wrote:

TopC wrote:

belial wrote:Its Legal but I have to say its also a bit sad. Sorry but Its a little desperate and I personally wouldn't play against it. But if your gaming group dont have a problem with it
and all do similar things then its entirely your choice.

May i ask why you wouldnt play against it? If it breaks los for you shooting directly behind the vehicle, it also breaks los for anything shooting from that location as well

because crisis suits can jump out and back behind said tank.

Exactly. And I would imagine that you wouldn't model it so your gun turrets still pointed ahead and not into the ground 2 inches in front of your own tank.

Nah id point the nose up a couple degrees, you can always point burst cannons down and besidies... rail guns can be mounted to point up if you want lol

Which then brings us back round to the whole modelling for advantage scenario. Which is going to go round and round in a silly circle.
Personally I wouldnt play against it but if your gaming group is ok with it.....................

belial wrote:Which then brings us back round to the whole modelling for advantage scenario. Which is going to go round and round in a silly circle.
Personally I wouldnt play against it but if your gaming group is ok with it.....................

what i last said isnt in any way modeling for advantage. the nose mounted burst cannons pivot when you build the model correctly. and pointing a rail gun up or straight forward is not an advantage, its physics. firing at something int he distance you dont fire a straight line to it everything arcs due to gravity and friction fromt he atmosphere..

How many people try to shoot under a devilfish/hammerhead anyway in 5th edition? Just mount them on the short flying stand.

whitedragon wrote:How many people try to shoot under a devilfish/hammerhead anyway in 5th edition? Just mount them on the short flying stand.

oh if people didnt do it..this wouldnt even be a question lol

TopC wrote:

belial wrote:Which then brings us back round to the whole modelling for advantage scenario. Which is going to go round and round in a silly circle.
Personally I wouldnt play against it but if your gaming group is ok with it.....................

what i last said isnt in any way modeling for advantage. the nose mounted burst cannons pivot when you build the model correctly. and pointing a rail gun up or straight forward is not an advantage, its physics. firing at something int he distance you dont fire a straight line to it everything arcs due to gravity and friction fromt he atmosphere..

Except this isnt real life its a game and the game doesnt have rules to represent how gravity effects a shot bar min/max ranges. Its nothing personal, I would no more want to play against an army that had all the models lying on their bases even if 'in real life soldiers would fire in that position to minimise their profile' I think its modelling for a distinct advantage. As I keep saying its your choice, if the people you play against have no problem with it then go.

While the proposed modeling could technically be considered legal, it's the sort of move that sees people promise to never play against you again. Particularly if you're doing it just to give your suits more cover.

A slightly more reasonable response would be to stop trying to hide your suits behind 'fishes and start utilising the terrain instead. And just accept that cover won't always completely hide you from view... Your units will get shot at. That's kind of the point of the game.

firing at something int he distance you dont fire a straight line to it everything arcs due to gravity and friction fromt he atmosphere..

40K doesn't take gravity and atmospheric friction into account. Unless it's a Barrage weapon, you need to be able to point the weapon at the target in order to shoot at it.

If the group is happy then go for it. Tilted is fine IMO but using Tau 'Hover tanks' to block LOS to models behind is a bit crazy.
'Sweep the legs!'