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.

Le Grognard wrote:True LOS is going to be is going to cause more arguements than it's worth. Not liking it.

Silver lining: You can play with your friends still and not get punched in the face.

zmc wrote:The RAW just says they have to be mounted on the bases they are provided with, not using any particular "Flight Rod" height, nor does it specify whether the rod is an integral part of the base. I foresee many, many players simply hacking off the rod and gluing the base to the bottom of their model. It's just skimming really low.

Or in this case, you can't. Le punch for le weaksauce.

insaniak wrote:

holden88 wrote:Pretty much everyone in the store disagreed with me and decree that skimmers block LOS just like other vehicles.

If they block LOS like every other vehicle, then you would be able to draw a LOS under them.

It's only the actual model that blocks LOS, not the space around it. Drawing LOS under it is every bit as valid as drawing a LOS over it.

One of the biggest sore points is the Necron Monolith. Most Necron players I know just plunk the Monolith down on the table with no base. How do you game this in 5th? Do you demand that these players put the Monolith on a base? If not the Monolith presents a pretty solid wall for troops to hide behind.

The few monoliths I've seen based have been on the lowest flight peg. You would need a pretty specific set-up to see underneath it to models on the other side, and frankly, I can't see it happening too often.

I dunno, I can see it happening with this guy quite a bit.
http://ca.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.ca?do=Individual&code=99060113032&orignav=10

Red_Lives wrote:So you are saying that you thing its valid to have a land raider on a skimmer base even thought its not a skimmer? Because thats the logic you are suggesting.

No. Your 'logic' says that there is a rule saying that when a skimmer stops 'skimming' that you pull it off of it's base. Please provide an actual rule to support your 'logic'.

The monolith comes without a flight base. Does that mean it now counts as sitting on the ground for LOS purposes?

I hope not, it's by far more effective allowing LOS but not assaults through it...

So if you get a Devilfish and put it on the taller flying base, can Fire Warriors easily see underneath it?

Why not? The tallest ones should allow normal infantry practically unimpeded sightlines on a level surface.

If you really wanted, you could model all your Devilfish mounted Firewarriors as slogging through a marsh with water up to their waists. That would do the trick.
Sell the leg bits to Battlewagon, and you could finance some brass rod to raise your Devilfish a half inch, and have enough left over to beat whomever complains about it.

Antonin wrote:The monolith comes without a flight base. Does that mean it now counts as sitting on the ground for LOS purposes?

Um.. all the Monoliths I've seen opened come with a standard flight base. Talking to many Necron players reveals that most of them just don't bother to use the base though. The small peg at the top of the stem tends to snap off easily. Some people bore out the hole underneath the Monolith and put the stem right into the model.

Does anyone know the length of the available stems, less the top pin? The bottom pin fits into the round base so it will count towards the overall height. What in effect are the maximum and minimum heights your models may be mounted?

I don't think my Monoliths came with flight bases. The thing is, they don't need em, as they have a 1/2" to 1" raiser built into the bottom of the model. Or at least I always assumed that was the sole purpose of that circle of plastic. Otherwise I did make flight bases out of empty dice cubes for mine.

Even that distinction is pointless Kirby, as there's nothing saying HOW it has to be mounted on the base, RAW you can mount the flight base inside the troop compartment, so long as it's mounted.

The rule is so utterly full of failure both in specificity and design that it's just another one of the many farces we will have to put up with in 40k.

zmc wrote:The rule is so utterly full of failure both in specificity and design that it's just another one of the many farces we will have to put up with in 40k.

Sigged!

zmc wrote:Even that distinction is pointless Kirby, as there's nothing saying HOW it has to be mounted on the base, RAW you can mount the flight base inside the troop compartment, so long as it's mounted.

The rule is so utterly full of failure both in specificity and design that it's just another one of the many farces we will have to put up with in 40k.

Other than the definition of mounted?

mount 1 (mount)
v. mount·ed, mount·ing, mounts
v.tr.
2. To place oneself upon; get up on: mount a horse; mount a platform.

zmc wrote:RAW you can mount the flight base inside the troop compartment, so long as it's mounted.

Putting the base inside the model is not mounting the model on the base.


I swear people are just looking for things to complain about at this point. Yes, the basing rules are a little vague. Know what? They've always been a little vague. In 4th edition, you could create all sorts of potential abusive models by changing the size and/or shape of your model's base, all because of the vagueness of the basing rules.

How many people actually did so? Did anyone actually ever come across the fabled Carnifex on a 1" x 12" base?

Anyone?

insaniak wrote:

zmc wrote:RAW you can mount the flight base inside the troop compartment, so long as it's mounted.

Putting the base inside the model is not mounting the model on the base.


I swear people are just looking for things to complain about at this point. Yes, the basing rules are a little vague. Know what? They've always been a little vague. In 4th edition, you could create all sorts of potential abusive models by changing the size and/or shape of your model's base, all because of the vagueness of the basing rules.

How many people actually did so? Did anyone actually ever come across the fabled Carnifex on a 1" x 12" base?

Anyone?

Not 1"x12", no. But some nameless individual did, in fact, bring larger-than-normal bases to Adepticon '07.

HILARIOUS!!!!!!!

DUDE THAT IS WORTH A BEER!

Janthkin wrote:[

Not 1"x12", no. But some nameless individual did, in fact, bring larger-than-normal bases to Adepticon '07.

erm .... not exactly nameless.


nice name tag btw


take care

Not only that, but he's clearly not measuring from the edge of his base!

Personally I'm not too worried about the whole basing thing myself. Anyone at the FLGS who tries to abuse that kind of thing will quickly find himself with out opponents to face, and I don't really go to any kind of big tournament scene so no worries there either.

I'll grant you that in Merriam Webster's vaunted collection of words your definition is 3rd and mine is 6(b) but people can still argue that "to mount" means:

6 b) to arrange or assemble for use or display

As in "The annoyed warhammer 40k player realized his overpriced plastic sci-fi dolls had mounted the base on the wall of the crew compartment in protest of the horrible way in which the rules are written."


EDIT: Just throwing it out there. While I consider myself reasonable and would never actually make that argument (except for purposes of poking fun at GW, of course) I can assure you that some day in the not so distant future this rule will be argued in a non hyperbolic case such as this by two people who also previously considered each other reasonable and rational human beings. Oh, and I used the dictionary to look up hyperbole. Yay!

Aduro wrote:Not only that, but he's clearly not measuring from the edge of his base!

Looks like he's actually in the middle of moving it.


I'd be curious to know what sort of sports score he got, though.

zmc wrote:I'll grant you that in Merriam Webster's vaunted collection of words your definition is 3rd and mine is 6(b) but people can still argue that "to mount" means:

It doesn't matter what definition you use. Mounting the base inside the miniature is not the same as mounting the miniature on the base.

zmc wrote:I'll grant you that in Merriam Webster's vaunted collection of words your definition is 3rd and mine is 6(b) but people can still argue that "to mount" means:

6 b) to arrange or assemble for use or display

As in "The annoyed warhammer 40k player realized his overpriced plastic sci-fi dolls had mounted the base on the wall of the crew compartment in protest of the horrible way in which the rules are written."


EDIT: Just throwing it out there. While I consider myself reasonable and would never actually make that argument (except for purposes of poking fun at GW, of course) I can assure you that some day in the not so distant future this rule will be argued in a non hyperbolic case such as this by two people who also previously considered each other reasonable and rational human beings. Oh, and I used the dictionary to look up hyperbole. Yay!

And this is where word context is important, my context is correct... yours is not. Most words have several different meanings because of context.

insaniak wrote:

Aduro wrote:Not only that, but he's clearly not measuring from the edge of his base!

I'd be curious to know what sort of sports score he got, though.

This was the Adepticon Gladiator. I don't know if he used the same army in the other 40k events.

Man, I *love* that you caught his name in that picture.


BTW, I'm totally stealing that picture to use in my line of sight and the magic cylinder article.

No need to steal - you have my permission.

(It truly was an accident to catch his nametag so clearly.)

Insaniak, you're not going to convince anyone who has spoken English for more than a few days that mounting the model on the base is any different than mounting the base on the model. Your incorrect assumption is based on the fact that you think English distinguishes clearly in the locative... it doesn't.

Oh, and here's the RAW since none of you appear to have actually read it, it proves my point perfectly:

BASES (page 3)

"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."

So go ahead and glue that model onto it's base. The top of the model, the bottom of the model, the inside of the model, the front. So long as you glue it ONTO the model.

That pic made the whole thread worth reading. Actual modelling to your advantage; priceless.

zmc wrote:Oh, and here's the RAW since none of you appear to have actually read it, it proves my point perfectly:
BASES (page 3)
"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."

Just posting that in the first place would have been far more useful than babbling on about how putting a base inside something is somehow the same as mounting that thing on the base.

Heaven forbid that some of us have not yet read a book that has not yet been actually released...

Wonder who is reading bad english? Glued onto the base, isnt quite the same as gluing the base onto the model. And english isnt even my first languange.