Necron Destroyers on 60mm bases - LoS abuse?

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.

**Herr Dexter**

Update with pictures: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432098.page#4220105

Hey guys.

I got this issue with Destroyers - they are bloody damn wobbly, at least mine are. This is because I have to remove flying bases all the time for transport.
I don't want to magnetise them as it takes too much drilling and, still, they were detaching unexpectedly (tried on old lord model)

If I glue rods in, transporting them will be a pain in the ass. Again, at least for me and with bags I got. Such a impractical model :/
Lastly - I don't like the look of that big rod and acrylic base.

Above is just TL;DR , now important part:

So what I'm planning to do is to have them glued to shorter rods (1/2 normal rod) and use normal 60mm bases.
This way I'll have scenic base with magnet underneath (ultra easy carriage in metal box) and rod will be hidden between nice looking base and model.
Hopefully, unless you look at it way from the side it will really look like it's hoovering above the base.

BUT!!

Could shorter rod and different base be considered TLoS abuse? Even If I won't be trying to use that to my advantage?
I can promise to my opponent pre-game that I won't try to claim that "lower hoovering" Destroyers were able to get out from his LoS by hinding behind the wall etc...

What do you think? How serious issue is this, talking league / tournament wise? (my local gamers / friends are ok with that)

**Maelstrom808**

I feel your pain after many years of repairing snapped support rods. If your friends and local players are cool with it, I'd say go with it. There will always be that one guy that will complain, and you'd be suprised how quick some people can change their minds about allowing something when they are losing a game to that army.

One thing that you could do is raise the part of the base that the support rods connect to so it compensates for the loss of height from the shorter rod. Add a rock of some sort of material (obviously not actual rock as it would be a pain to drill into) and attach the support rod to it. The different base shouldn't be an issue as long as it's 60mm.

**don_mondo**

Maelstrom808 wrote:I feel your pain after many years of repairing snapped support rods.

Check out speepystems.com He makes the rods out of aluminum.........................

**Nemesor Dave**

When you get the bases for destroyers, it comes with two rods of different heights. You could always use the shorter rod and a thicker base of the same diameter. That way the maximum height of the model is the same as if you used the original base and tallest rod.

I totally feel your pain as I would love to have a better system, however for me flying bases must have clear rods. anything else just isn't a flying base to me.

**Lepuke**

Drill out the hole in the bottom of the Destroyer as deep as you can and a bit wider then trim the top off the rod to suit.
The rods are slightly chamfered so you can get a good tight fit easily.
They will sit a bit lower tho.

**Clumpski**

unforcently i have this same problem with tau tanks x.x not found a solution yet, i feel your pain x.x

**Portugal Jones**

Magnets. The 'too much drilling' complaint is too silly to be legitimate. Clip off the narrowed tip of the flying stand to give you a flat surface to glue one magnet to. Drill the mounting hole in the bottom of the destroyer wider to take the matching magnet. Less work then redoing all the bases.

**dkellyj**

Or just forgo the base and let the model stand on its own. As long as your not claiming TLoS advantages no one should have a issue (see rules regarding wobbly model syndrome).

**Homer S**

Lepuke wrote:Drill out the hole in the bottom of the Destroyer as deep as you can and a bit wider then trim the top off the rod to suit.
The rods are slightly chamfered so you can get a good tight fit easily.
They will sit a bit lower tho.

This is what I do with my Eldar skimmers. I use the long stems so they sit maybe 1/4" lower than they would on the normal mount. If your opponent whines, then you didn't really want to play them anyway.

Homer

**Jimsolo**

What I would recommend is this: Keep one model around with the normal flight stand for comparison purposes. If you think you'd be out of LOS, but your opponent claims you are modeling to advantage, just plop the 'measuring model' down for verification. Then put him away so his wobby appearance doesn't jack up the pimp flow of your army. I think that's the fairest option, and don't see how anyone could complain.

**Herr Dexter**

Thanks for all the suggestions guys!

As for magnets - I tried that on my first model, the Destroyer Lord. As it is with magnets, the model still kept wobbling from side to side and once (unfortunately struck) detached and dropped to the floor.. Well, I could have used much stronger magnets that surpass the weight of model itself, but they WILL be visible at the end of rod. My friend's Talos was done this way and it works but he has to sit on a big damn camo-painted rod with a magnet inside. Doesn't like or want that look at all...

The reason I wanted 60mm bases is that I prefer my models (unless they are vehicles) to sit on a nice, sandy, scenic base. And I do like the idea of Destroyers hoovering about 0,5" above such base. Small rod and firm dosage of glue should keep model firmly in place. The rod should be barely visible, and overall should look good. Also, such base will contain a penny-sized magnet underneath so the whole model with base can be transported in metal box. I do that with my 20 Warriors, best carriage for non-metal models ever.

I like the comparison idea. (Thanks Jimsolo!) My Destroyer Lord will usually fly with Wraiths so I'll leave him on full scale rod and find another transportation mean for him. He would look poor if hoovering much lower then wraiths anyway

So in the end - if need arises, he can be used to show the "fully legit" height of Destroyer-class model.

Guess that solution is sufficient? Any firm objections?

**Happyjew**

Were you using rare earth magnets? Those things are surprisingly strong for their size.

**Herr Dexter**

Nope, neodymium.

**rigeld2**

Herr Dexter wrote:Nope, neodymium.

Same thing.

**chromedog**

Except you are limited by diameter what will fit onto the top of the stand (and the mass it can suspend). They aren't that strong below a certain size.

While yes, you could glue a 10mmx1mm to the top (with that whole 3mm diameter surface area) but it will be receiving that much radial stress, that it WILL come off (superglue can't handle that sort of stress).

A 3mm magnet will hold a jetbike (all plastic) onto a flight stand. It might even hold a plastic destroyer. It CANNOT hold the metal hybrid destroyer lord (centre of mass is off centre).

Just enlarging the hole and snipping off the nubbin works. Most people don't notice it and whilst it is technically a breach of rules to "not" glue them in - anyone who argues the point is not someone you want to play.

**Herr Dexter**

rigeld2 wrote:
Herr Dexter wrote:Nope, neodymium.

Same thing.

Everyday I learn new vocabulary

Back to magnets - I was using small 3x1 mm magnet at the end of rod (cut off the smallest part) and inserted a cylinder-shaped 3(4?) x 5mm magnet into Destroyer's hole.
Was enough to keep model in place, suprisingly even - center of mass wasn't so dislocated and whole lord was on the rod. Too bad that when moving it or if the game table got tilted - it cept detaching.
I'm afraid that small magnet simply has insufficient space to hold it together properly... So even 2 cylindric magnets will detach as the space where they meet has small diameter.

PS: God I'm twisting my mind trying to put this pseudo-tech babble into english

**Janthkin**

chromedog wrote:Just enlarging the hole and snipping off the nubbin works. Most people don't notice it and whilst it is technically a breach of rules to "not" glue them in - anyone who argues the point is not someone you want to play.

This is what I did with my Eldar tanks, and it works very well.

**Nagashek**

Necron Destroyers aren't coming with 60mm flying bases anymore? Hunh. They did when I bought them. They are way too top heavy for the small flying bases. Personally I variate my stand lengths for visual effect. Flying stands have 4 posted bases: the long and medium that come with small flyers, then the med/small and small that come with skimmers. When putting together a squad of Gundrones, I used all four lengths at the same time to make them look like they were hovering in a swarm, getting cleaner shots from one another.

I modeled my Destroyers in the same fashion. No one ever complained, so I doubt you'll have issues.

Now, my Archon modelled on a scenic 40mm base to allow for him and his slave girl that I'm taking to Tourney on Saturday... THAT I expect to get gigged for. :packs his unpainted archon, just in case:

**Maelstrom808**

They still come on the 60mm flight stand. The OP is talking about switching them to normal 60mm bases so he can use a magnetized transport case. If it weren't for the magnets on the bottom, I'd say just paint and flock the flight stands. Did it with mine.

**rigeld2**

You can put a magnet in the base of the flight stand pretty easily... Then flock the base to cover it up.

**Starless Night**

If you want to avoid magnetizing the destroyers, if you put a thin layer of paint inside the hole where the stand goes on the model, then when the paint dries, it will create a tighter fit and cause the models to not wobble so much. Granted each layer only lasts about a month, but thats what I did before I got magnets.

**ph34r**

The base is not a major issue.
Large flying bases are 60mm, and 60mm bases... are 60mm.

I would not make the rod any shorter than the default. Shorter destroyers could definitely draw some ire in serious games or tournaments.

Just make sure the destroyers' height is the same as with the old basing. You should already get a half-cm boost or so from switching from the flat 60mm flight stand to the 60mm base.

**DarthSpader**

too bad the crons dont get the fancy ball/socket flying stands DE have... but what ive done in the past is clip off the skinny portion of the top of the stem, and widen the hole on the model. works pretty well and is easy enough. plus less likley to break the little stem off inside the model wich is all kinds of bad mojo

**Lordhat**

Using the short pegs is perfectly fine. These are awesome for flight stands.

http://www.rattleheadgames.com/catalog/NJM1100.html

**IHateNids**

I just haven't got bases on my destroyers at all. No-one has ever complained, even at a tournement last weekend

**Crablezworth**

IHateNids wrote:I just haven't got bases on my destroyers at all. No-one has ever complained, even at a tournement last weekend

If it was a friendly game I'd want to make sure we're on the same page in terms of how to handle combat/los, if it was a tournament I'd take it to the tournament organizer.

**IHateNids**

Crablezworth wrote:
IHateNids wrote:I just haven't got bases on my destroyers at all. No-one has ever complained, even at a tournement last weekend

If it was a friendly game I'd want to make sure we're on the same page in terms of how to handle combat/los, if it was a tournament I'd take it to the tournament organizer.

I would, but the the flight stem nubbins have broke off in all of the holes

**Herr Dexter**

Rescently we played a game with my Destroyers simply without bases - just laying on the board.
To be honest without them going inside buildings (which I never even attempted to do as normally based destroyers wouldn't fit inside) there were no LoS issues whatsoever. Cover was claimed by moving into certain terrain and visibility has no affect on that as they are not MC or vehicles that need to prove coverage. Also we came up with funny "solution" - I have a spare Destroyer head... on a stick. It's cut to have the head on the exact height of normal destroyer. I can always measure actual "by the book" height if someone requests.

**Herr Dexter**

Ok, here's how I eventually did it:

I used shorter stem that comes in Destroyer Box, and I don't think instruction dictates which stem to use.
I wanted the model to be in the centre of the base (on flying base it's slightly behind) so stem/rod goes not into the central whole but on closer to base's edge.

**axeman1n**

I think it took me all of 10 mins to magnetized every Destroyer in my army. Drill out the small hole with a bigger one. Glue in a magnet that sits a bit proud. Make sure it's a strong one. Then screw on a nut to the end of a Flying base. Trim off the excess, so the nut is level. Voila, you have a magnetized flying base. btw, don't use stainless or brass nuts.