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.

insaniak wrote:
(The exception here would be for skimmers, which are allowed to end their move over impassable terrain. So a skimmer can sit on another model's base if it can be physically placed there, but takes a Dangerous terrain test...)

And leads to tank driving out from under skimmer fun time.

kirsanth wrote:

skkipper wrote:cover automaticly is granted because then you are saying the space under the defiler is the defiler those resulting in shooting through the model.

TLoS means this is incorrect. The model is the model, not the space around it.

The gaps in a model give you LoS, but they still provide cover. Look at INAT RB.22a.02 for an explanation.

Nope.
That is between multiple models.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The gaps in a model give you LoS, but they still provide cover. Look at INAT RB.22a.02 for an explanation.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Gaps in an individual model are not "gaps between models in an intervening unit". They don't qualify for the gap cover exception.

Additionally, reread the faq answer you're referencing. It specifically refers to "the two models... that are being fired 'through'." and the example involves only gaps between separate models.

So a defiler that happens to have a base gets treated differently than a defiler that doesn't? This sounds like there is a lot of potential for modeling for advantage.

As models are only supposed to be on the base they came with, models on bases that they did not come with are already questionable.

I've never seen a Defiler or Soul Grinder modeled with a base. Does the kit even come with one?

No.

kirsanth wrote:As models are only supposed to be on the base they came with, models on bases that they did not come with are already questionable.

As a player who's been playing for quite some time, I've got models from Rogue Trader and 2nd edition. My 2nd edition Terminators have tiny bases, and my Rogue Trader Land Speeders are about half the size of a 3rd Ed. Land Speeder. Since I need to clip the "nub" off of the flying bases (the old flying bases, btw) for them to sit there with any stability, they sit about half the height of a 3rd ed. Land Speeder as well.

Now the question becomes: my Terminators and Land Speeders are older models. They're much smaller, and have smaller bases. Would I catch flack in a tournament for using Land Speeders that are half the size of the latest model?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Now the question becomes: my Terminators and Land Speeders are older models. They're much smaller, and have smaller bases. Would I catch flack in a tournament for using Land Speeders that are half the size of the latest model?

Flack? Probably a little.
Legitimate legality arguments? Probably not so much, but take it up with the tournament organizer ahead of time if you are at all unsure.

Gorkamorka wrote:Flack? Probably a little.

Or not, depending on the event, really. From my experience, most players are more than happy to see old models on the board, particularly if the model is from a time before that player started playing. They'll spend more time saying 'Woah, cool!' then they will criticising the in-game effect of the model being a little smaller than the current version.

insaniak wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Flack? Probably a little.

Or not, depending on the event, really. From my experience, most players are more than happy to see old models on the board, particularly if the model is from a time before that player started playing. They'll spend more time saying 'Woah, cool!' then they will criticising the in-game effect of the model being a little smaller than the current version.

Yep, it's entirely opponent dependent. I get odd looks for putting down my 4th ed trukks next to my 5th ed one (they're easily 1/4 the size), but I've never had someone throw a fit about it.
YMMV, as always.
To be safe, bring it up with the TO, but I foresee no issues.

I have a set of 9 warriors from Advanced Space Crusade that came with tiny square bases. I get flak for using them as such. Mostly because I also have current generation warriors on the medium sized round bases.

It is technically correct to use the smaller square, but I have put them on the bases that warriors currently come with. This tends to stop issues, despite actually causing one. However, this is different than putting current models on bases that they did not come with, I think.

Most people that I know (including TO's) seem to prefer the current standard, despite the RAW -- so I play that way. ymmv