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 am gonna say no, wobbly model syndrome is still a thing right?

But If the models cant stand in a building due to the fact that their models are put of stupidly oversized bases I would probably say that it is their fault and not allow it

Annoyed at the size of the base, but we have no idea if the model is "actually" hanging off the front and not touching anything while being placed as such to show relative position.

So, with just the pi three to look at they most assuredly are NOT cheating. They are following pure RAW and when their opponent shoots they will hold their base in the proper position to allow for combat resolution.

 Peregrine wrote:
Depends on what the units are, from the pictures it looks like at least some of them are "normal" infantry on 60mm scenic bases? If that's the case then no, not cheating. You count them as being on 25mm bases and ignore the 60mm base if it has any impact on gameplay, since the model is supposed to be on a 25mm base.

This is wrong both in terms of the BRB and the FAQs.

The rules assume that you are taking the base that the model came with, but if you opt to use a different base, then that's your prerogative, and the same rules apply just the same to the larger base. Ditto if you have a smaller base than you "should" have.

If you have a ridiculously large base, then yes, the rules apply, as written, to your ridiculously large base. You don't get a "pass" because it "should" be on a smaller base.

IoW: The rules work with what you actually have, not with what you "should" have.

 Traditio wrote:
This is wrong both in terms of the BRB and the FAQs.

The rules assume that you are taking the base that the model came with, but if you opt to use a different base, then that's your prerogative, and the same rules apply just the same to the larger base. Ditto if you have a smaller base than you "should" have.

If you have a ridiculously large base, then yes, the rules apply, as written, to your ridiculously large base. You don't get a "pass" because it "should" be on a smaller base.

IoW: The rules work with what you actually have, not with what you "should" have.

Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

I'm not actually sure it's against the rules. because of the wobbly models syndrome rule. Which allows flyers to have their spot marked if they end their move on top of a unit. the same with models ending movement precariously in terrain.
I think it's against the spirit of the game or maybe unsporting but I don't think it's actually illegal. I could be wrong.

Pic 1: I think the models could of been placed so they didn't overlap and would of been fine with them being there if adjusted.

Pic 2: They aren't going to fit with those bases so they need to move to different floor levels to not overlap.

In either case I wouldn't call it cheating so much as its just a rules violation as I don't think the intent is to gain an advantage so much as it is to just get the models to fit up there due to their giant bases. Also I know HWT's have giant bases but is it normal for IG snipers to be on large 60mm bases? They look cool but seem extremely impractical when they take up that much space.

No it's not, snipers come on 25mm bases and have for several editions.

I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
No it's not, snipers come on 25mm bases and have for several editions.

Oh hai.

They're meant to be on 25mm bases so I mean, it's the guys onus if he wants to base them on something bigger. For seriousness though, I would not like playing an opponent that based them like this: if your models are individuals, don't base them as couples. That would drive me batty. If he wanted scenic bases he could have built something out of cork that let him fit 2 25mm bases onto a scenic round base, so he could detach them as needed. This is what I do with my Riptide and his drones: they both have peg holes on his bases because it looks great as its done, but in a game they're flying on their own stems.

Oversized bases are double edged, if you want one you get 'slightly better shooting range' but also leave yourself more open to attack.

Either way in the first case if that's all he was doing I wouldn't have ruled against it. If those are heavy weap teams on the emplacement then they belong on those bases and I'm not giving that derp in front a cover save because he's stationed above it.

The 2nd picture is taking the piss. I'd point out that half of them aren't even in cover. This is the same situation if I jetpack a Riptide on top of a building: if it's not obscured in any way, I don't feel any justification for benefiting from a cover save. I would have insisted if he wanted to pull that, that he needs to find other 25mm models to proxy. As for HWTs, I mean I can understand the pain, but it has to be reasonable. In either case, have proxies available.

General Annoyance wrote:Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

Breathe out and remember.........it's only a game.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference. The real problem is with taking casualties, but again, simply agree on where the remaining models are. It doesn't take a diplomat and a council of bystanders to make a reasonable compromise, unless you are enough of a stuck up to not want to compromise on one unit that, ultimately, will not affect any of your attacks against it.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

Still, in the example from the OP, this is hardly modelling for advantage or disadvantage. By all means say that you'd prefer that they stick to being 60mm bases for simplicity later on, but being a dick about it will only motivate the player to pack up their things and leave. And unless you live in a spite and anger filled head, that's not a good thing to motivate anyone to do.

Techincally, it's not playing by the rules. I guess the question is, is this a big issue? I mean, everyone draws their own lines on what's acceptable and what's not. Some people require measuring each individual model in a unit when moving. Some people are ok with moving the front row and then ballparking the rest of the moves.

The point is, technically illegal, but probably not worth stressing over. Talk with your opponent about how to treat a situation before you attempt to resolve it. Simple situation for the snipers would be, as the owner, allowing 2 hits if a marker touches any part of the base. Gives the benefit to the opponent. As for the overlapping HWT, they're incredibly unwieldy models, so just give the guy a break. They really suck to work with.

If I moved my models as shown in the pics, I'd feel as if I were cheating. If I found myself trying to defend those moves, I'd feel like an arsehole. If I told someone else they should be OK with someone else doing it, I'd feel.....hmmm.....dirty.

General Annoyance wrote:It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

I'm not really that much of a "stickler" about anything in-game. I generally only call out clear, obvious cases of "No, that's not a thing."

Examples in the last game I played:

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. There's a literal mountain in the way. Your dude has scenic view of...rocks. He is staring face to face at a giant wall of stone."

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. He's not taller than that rhino that's in the way."

Another example:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

But when it comes to borderline cases? I'll give it to my opponent practically every time. "Eeeeh? Is that 25 percent? Don't care. Roll that 5+ for your vehicle." "Does this really count as intervening models? Eh. Whatevs. 5+! Line of sight questionable? Eeeeeeeh. Good enough. Go for it."

I'm not a competitive player. I'm not a rules lawyer.

That said:

Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

Does anyone actually know what the base sizes for those Steel Legion Snipers is supposed to be? I've never seen those models before, so I can't be sure.

I'd say No for his placement in terrain where the base isn't entirely supported.

But a definite yes for putting the bases on top of each other. If I started stacking my Dire Avengers to fit them behind cover I'd be cheating so I'd call this the same.

 Traditio wrote:
Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

If you claim to be a fully non competitive player and not a rules laywer, then surely you see merit in allowing this player to make this move, even if it is an illegal one in terms of RAW, and in practically any scenario bar this one.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

It literally takes ten seconds to work that out with an opponent. Also wobbly model syndrome is a thing - not that it applies in this circumstance really, but your rule of putting models somewhere else couldn't apply then.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

Precisely the point here - it's not that big a deal. If you really did think he was cheating in this case for an unfair advantage, then you wouldn't drop an argument over it.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

And yet people still do it, at least in my experience; that is, to me at least, certainly modelling for advantage, and doesn't really compare to this scenario at all.

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

I'm not really that much of a "stickler" about anything in-game. I generally only call out clear, obvious cases of "No, that's not a thing."

Examples in the last game I played:

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. There's a literal mountain in the way. Your dude has scenic view of...rocks. He is staring face to face at a giant wall of stone."

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. He's not taller than that rhino that's in the way."

Another example:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

But when it comes to borderline cases? I'll give it to my opponent practically every time. "Eeeeh? Is that 25 percent? Don't care. Roll that 5+ for your vehicle." "Does this really count as intervening models? Eh. Whatevs. 5+! Line of sight questionable? Eeeeeeeh. Good enough. Go for it."

I'm not a competitive player. I'm not a rules lawyer.

That said:

Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

Afraid it sounds nes like you spend your games bossing people about and pointing out why are doing it wrong and should listen to you.

A game, a hobby, a pastime. That's all it is.

I wouldn't call it cheating.

It just some models in a game.

If something like this stresses you out (in a non-tourny event), you shouldn't be involved in table top games.

The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

In a game that otherwise strictly adheres to TLOS, it seems really weird to me to say that two people can't stand on a platform where two people could very obviously fit, because they're dragging a 15 foot circle of dirt around their feet that has to be accommodated also.

It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

I would not put my models in a manner where the bases overlap, and I would not let my opponent, either. Cheating is a strong word for this instance. I would say "Not Allowed."

I disagree with the 'they would fit on a smaller base' argument. Because if you use that you would have to apply it to blast templates, or deep striking or any of that

if the regular bases fit sure, I'd let him. I'm not going to demand he precariously balance his showcase models on some terrain because I'm worried about literally one single model getting a slightly better los unfairly. Paint jobs on metal models chips incredibly easy. You guys sound like tons of fun to play with.

 Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

Okay Tradito, lets rebase all of your Dev's and HW Marines on 60mm bases and see what happens. Oh, whats that? You wont?

EXACTLY

Shut up Tradito and stop whining. You have no idea how hard WHT are to use as is, and now you want us to nerf them even furhter by stating that they cannot be placed anywhere on any citadel terrain? Well do you know what, it is not our fault that GW decided to force us to use bases that are normally reserved for Dreadnoughts and the like. If it where not for them then HWT would easily fit into the small spaces on Citadel terrain, so you know what? In future shut up and actually think about the perspective of things for once. Or would that be too hard, seeing as ten amrines with a ML and Flamer cannot overcome it?

This is one f those don't do it before you ask it kind of things.
Like peeing on your nigbours lawn or having sex with their mailbox. Some might be OK with it but most will not like it if you surprise them with it.

Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to either case. Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

If the IG player wanted to put in a more precarious position, then yes, he could place a marker and say: "My guy's there."

But bases cannot overlap. The only exception to this is zooming fliers, but even then, you can only move "through" the base. You can't end the turn with two bases in the same place. The only exception to this seems to be when a flier crashes and burns...for reasons I don't entirely understand.