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.

I'd classify this as altering the base... more correctly the base/model relationship. I mean really... where do you stop? I can mount my Land Speeders on their noses and they block a hell of a lot more LOS.

Just pointing out that the railgun's shots wouldn't arc because they are travelling and disturbingly fast speeds. it would curve, yes, but it would be such a gradual curve that the shot shot wouldn't have been messed up until very far away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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..

This is what I was responding to.

The Green Git wrote:I'd classify this as altering the base... more correctly the base/model relationship. I mean really... where do you stop? I can mount my Land Speeders on their noses and they block a hell of a lot more LOS.

And thats basically what the OP is asking if he can do, at least from what Ive read in this thread.

Legal wise, I could stand 3 battlewagons up on their rear ends, side by side and run them that way, simply because it doesnt say in the rule book that I couldnt. And seeing as your asking if you can tilt the devilfish so far down/up that it completely blocks the LOS from things behind it is pretty much the same thing IMO.

Id never play against you if you tried that. Things get shot at in 40k thats the way of it. If you dont like being shot at, then just stick to the modeling aspect of the game so your pretty battlesuits dont take hits. Ill also further go on to say IMO thatd be completely illegal to play like that, even though I just said legally you could. Its a total BS thing to pull on someone. Tourny play or friendly gaming, either one you play, you should NEVER try crap like that. It makes you a total douche (not trying to sound like Im insulting, so please dont take it that way)

(man my spell check is missing alot lately lol)

I don't see it as any different to modelling speeders so they are nose down (vectoring in forward flight - as many helicopters do to take off).

I usually mount my speeders this way and most people tell me it looks cooler (some noobs think that I've modelled them to look like they're crashing already to save them the trouble of blowing them up though) and I haven't been pinged for sports (and the people who would would get it back anyway - as they're the kind of people who deserve the hit).

Wow I mean I have never seen a Monolith on a flying base( and i have three of them).

But its not illegal to have them pointing down or up to block line of sight... Just makes them targets to kill first...
Ive seen people add all kinds of terrian features to there flying bases too suport the stand and that blocks line of sight. I Just wish the magic jar would come back again...

The "magic jar" only existed due to people being unable to read the rules in 4th ed. TLOS has been around since at least 3rd ed, all 5th has done is remove the concept of "levels" when dealing with area terrain and combats.

StarGate wrote: Ive seen people add all kinds of terrian features to there flying bases too suport the stand and that blocks line of sight.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't. See the last paragraph on page 21.

insaniak wrote:

StarGate wrote: Ive seen people add all kinds of terrian features to there flying bases too suport the stand and that blocks line of sight.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't. See the last paragraph on page 21.

Ignored for cover .... sadly this does not also include LOS, which requires that you can see the model. In theory an IG heavy weapons team could not be shot at if you can't see the model behind the sand bags. That said if you model them in such a way that they also cannot see then they couldn't shoot ether. I think i speak for every one when i say that playing that way is silly and no one would play that way.

A friend had a number of hormagants that were laying sideways on their bases -- they looked like the were sliding. This was done in 4e when it made less of a difference. Discussions like this always make me think of those guys.

"Those are the bases they were supplied with"

Next up mount my valkyrie to block los to my basilisk. Don't think that would fly.

Just a word of advise. If you play a regular group then they will know exactly what you are doing. That my not fly. Plus it just takes a slight move to the side to get that los back. Its a bit cheezy to build a mobile wall...

In that case, may I tilt my Land Raider on its side and play it that way?

Yes, it is legal. But there are better ways to protect your battlesuits without looking like TFG.

How relentless would people have to be in asking mocking the model for looking like it's crashing in order to make this problem go away? Are there going to be Fire Warrriors modeled getting shot and killed, or running away, to keep the theme going? How about a few models being impaled on force weapons?

Or would it be sufficient to point out that turrets in the rules aren't able to point straight up, so that the crashing vehicle wouldn't be able to actually shoot except to the side?

On topic: This is a modeling question, and that means the answer is either "Ask your tournament organizer if it's okay" or "Ask your opponent if it's okay".

Well, after an exhaustive review of the applicable RAW and a long and expensive conference call with the GW design team, I've concluded that someone needs a slap if they're tilting their flying bases to cover models. The 'slap' answer will be appearing in the INAT FAQ shortly I'm told. Failing a slap (he might be bigger than you) I'd recommend the next best thing, which is to ridicule the offender until he stops being a nancy boy.

Sometimes the only answer to rules abuse has nothing to do with the rules. In all seriousness this is an issue for your gaming group to police for themselves. Tournies are taken care of by soft scores mostly, but gaming groups are mostly self policed. Mockery goes a long way in a social group too, so start there and branch out.

...wow so much negativity, and i think most the votes were based off personal reasoning not rules. sad since ive itterated repeatedly that i would like LEGAL yes or no not personal feelings getting involved.

if people werent pulling obscene shots i wouldnt be asking this. So whatev, i'll mount up on a 1/4'' flying base and tilt my nose down about 2degrees all you'll see from straight on is my feet. if you have to move to see me, thats the freaking point. if i want to shoot your tac squad behind your raider i have to move as well. I'm just tired of people saying, HA i see 1/3 of your head i'm shooting it, i really dont wanna have to argue this because its really dumb. So to bypass all the long windedness and reducing the fun of the game, i'm just going to LEGALLY model my vehicles in a way that just HAPPENS to block LoS from a few angles.

Some of you think this is a hard/going way out of my way thing to do, its really not. it just means im going from no base to a base and i'm NOT moding the base.

You've got it all wrong.

You're supposed to say you modeled it at a forward tilt to suggest speed, silly!

Owain wrote:You've got it all wrong.

You're supposed to say you modeled it at a forward tilt to suggest speed, silly!

dang right! makes them supa fast for ramming!

Owain wrote:You've got it all wrong.

You're supposed to say you modeled it at a forward tilt to suggest speed, silly!

Actually, this is why you seem to be getting so much flak for your post... your reasons for asking the legality of it were worded to the tune of "I'm a rules-lawyering Beardy McToe-cheese. Is it legal for me angle my model so I can make up for the fact that i'm an inept player?" As opposed to asking the less baiting question of "I put my skimmer on a tilt, to show a sense of movement, and noticed that it took the (negligable, as only a prone model could draw that LOS) lines of sight running underneath it. Does anyone here forsee a rules issue?"


All the flak your taking on this one is really your own fault. Many times, on a forum, as in life, it's not what you ask, but how you ask it...

Well i obviously know what issue is going to arise, i obviously am honest enough to admit i'd benefit. i see it as being dishonest by not disclosing before hand. So it was disclosed from the onset.

If you don't mind, I'm going to quote Yakface's sig for this one. Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?

I've always modeled my skimmers in slightly tilted ways and never thought of this issue nor have I run into a problem of someone calling me on it.

Most people I play against just think it looks cool that the skimmer appears to be moving one way or the other.

Just state that you modeled it that way for the look.

Stating that as the reason might be the difference between you "modeling for advantage" or the other guy just being a nit picky jerk.

Edit: Double spaced for easier reading.

Well the problem is, the way you asked your question is going to bring alot of personal feelings and flak. You didnt mention a tiny 2 degree angle. That looks like its moving and no thats not a problem at all. The way you originally worded it, sounded like you wanted to basically have the tank on its nose, blocking LOS on the ground and above the tank so you can "basically" cheat. Wording it that way will piss people off.

So my advice is next time, think a bit more on how to word your questions, so you dont catch so much flak

I've done mine up to 45 degrees (side) and 30 degrees (forward) and no one has ever complained.

I justify it as "rushing forward to recover the troops" or "Desperatly trying to dodge a missile"

do it, if people get uptight about it dont worry about it, there are plenty of players that arent to anal about that kinda thing, find one of them to play with.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I've always modeled my skimmers in slightly tilted ways and never thought of this issue nor have I run into a problem of someone calling me on it.

Most people I play against just think it looks cool that the skimmer appears to be moving one way or the other.

Just state that you modeled it that way for the look.

Stating that as the reason might be the difference between you "modeling for advantage" or the other guy just being a nit picky jerk.

Edit: Double spaced for easier reading.

I wasn't being nit-picky, just a friendly joke. I did answer your question though, yes you can. People do it all the time.

its cool, i need to mount my vehicles anyway (been painting) but it just came to mind when people were being all super critical shooting at things which is annoying..so it was kinda just to needle them back lol

Yea I do understand where your coming from. Thats one of those things you should discuss before the game. Just say hey I personally think that you can only shoot at my suits if THIS part is showing and so on.

Its things like that, that make me glad the group I have is a really good group, and ass hattery rarely comes up

Just remember that if you start a war of escalation by modeling, nothing good can come of it. At some point you will see a Chaos army with either eye stalks or eyes modeled on the feet. And then someone will decide to recreate the dreaded LOS rhino:

Are we talking about modeling the model to a permanent tilt? Or using that old Land Speeder ball-pivot mount thingy(does it still have it?)?

this is how I answer ALL of my questions when modeling, gaming even.

"if i saw this being used in someone else's army, would s/he be a TFG"

that should answer your question.

It would be a permanent slight tilt. Nothing extreme. it would be approx 3 degree nose down from the enter axis mount