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.

Two quick questions for the good folk of DD:

I have shortened the flying stands on my grav tanks. I did this for two reasons. Firstly the way I did it (by widening the hole on the underside of tank itself as well as shortening the rod of the stand) means that the tank is far more stable. Secondly, I think they look cool, and I always envisaged skimmers as literally skimming the surface, just like regular tanks without wheels, rather than quasi-flyers. Envisage, if you will, the droid federation tanks from star wars: episode one. This is of course merely a matter of opinion and taste as to how Eldar skimmers should look, but I like it. I certainly did not do it to gain any advantage.

That said, they are quite low - about as low as they can be, so I worry people may think I am doing this to get closer to that 25% behind certain terrain. I would contest that the rods provided were of variable length to begin with, there is no stated height they must be, and the actual height I lost compared to the shortest official rod (and I believe out of the lengths available the shorter ones are for tanks, and the taller ones, bikes) is pretty minimal. We are talking a few millimeters I think.

My regular gaming group certainly don't mind (though my brother who is always keen to beat me was a bit skeptical!), but I certainly don't want to limit myself to friendly games with the same lot.

My second question: I have two Falcons and 3 wave serpents. Whilst I am staunch defender of the Falcon's viability in the new codex, and not a fan of spam, I have nonetheless thought dreamily about a list with 5 serpents. I am on a budget and the easiest way I could think to do this is to pick up a couple of those FW WS turrets. That way I at least have the option to do either.

This leaves me with a similar problem: they lack the extended hull and fins of my other serpents. Will this be a problem with WYSIWYG, and will the lack of pointy bits draw further accusations of modelling for advantage?

You make Da call never seemed a more appropriate forum title: what do you think?

On the bases issue, I'd probably change the bases back to the original height. There are two shafts, and the shorter one should be the one you can't go below. Eventually, you will slip into the reliance on your Falcons/Serpents being easier to hide. Unless you aren't going to do any tournaments, your opponents will be the judge.

Bits for the Wave Serpents can be easily found. Making it obvious that it isn't a normal Falcon should be easy enough.

You shortened the rods for the looks and for safety's sake.
Are you ready to play those vehicles as if they were at the "normal" height?
For the falcon-> serpent question I think the fins do not count as the hull, being a representation of a piece of wargear .
Unlike with an ork vehicle though, not counting them as a part of the hull only advantages you as far as I can see so you might want to watch out for that.

Generally base gaming for a "strategic advantage" is highly frowned upon. I've seen this done with grav tanks and now with fliers to make them lower to the ground.

As for what counts as the hull of the vehicle and what doesn't is to go with the general rule of when you were building it was it part of a over all solid piece. I play DE, and I don't count the shock prow portion as part of the hull, so I don't use it for my measuring purposes either.

Are you ready to play those vehicles as if they were at the "normal" height?

The lower hulls have never really played into part of my battle plan, and I don't think that it has ever made a significant difference to the 25% matter. Generally there is terrain that clearly does obscure them (ruins, hills, etc), and terrain that doesn't (barrels, rocks, tank traps). A few millimeters has never made a difference, and I certainly have no interest in cheating. The worry is going to a tournament and getting in trouble with people. I guess I may have to acquire a second set of bases, *sigh*.

Bits for the Wave Serpents can be easily found. Making it obvious that it isn't a normal Falcon should be easy enough.

I have already painted and assembled all my vehicles, so whilst a turret swap allowing for more list building options would be lovely, sticking fins on and such is not really an option. So is a turret alone enough for a WYSIWYG wave serpent?

For the falcon-> serpent question I think the fins do not count as the hull, being a representation of a piece of wargear .

That is interesting, my brother especially is always shooting me to death via the flags on my back and the tip of my lances. It has always frustrated me as I feel it penalises dynamic models like my eldar over his chunky little power armoured buggers, and also puts me off modelling more and more decorative stuff, which I feel is a shame. However I have seen nothing in the RAW that could distinguish between wargear or decorative items, and the bits that should hurt you if you shoot at them. Could anyone elucidate further on this?

It also raises another question, if this isn't going OT: the fire prism (just to name one example among many) can angle itself round the corner f a building with just its gun poking out. If you have ever played a game like World of Tanks you will know how it is a "realistic" tactic outside of 40k, and one that makes some AFV's significantly better designed than others. Up to now we have agreed that basically "if I can see you you can see me" and I mostly do it because of the definite cover save, and that it will be out of LOS of other units. However, if it counts as "wargear" and cannot be shot at (if you are right on this point) then that is even better, to the point of being downright cheesy. Is this right?

Your brother is right out; those are nopt the "body" of the models(defined as Arms, Legs, head, and torso in the BRB).

Weapon barrels, antennae, and other "pretty bits" that are not the hull of a vehicle and, well not the hull of the vehicle for LOS purposes.

As far as the Fire prism goes, you sight along the barrel, and it is turret mounted. You do not gain any LOS advantage by having just the barrel tip poking out from behind a building; you still fire in that straight line, not around the corner in any way.

 WildeThing wrote:

For the falcon-> serpent question I think the fins do not count as the hull, being a representation of a piece of wargear .

That is interesting, my brother especially is always shooting me to death via the flags on my back and the tip of my lances. It has always frustrated me as I feel it penalises dynamic models like my eldar over his chunky little power armoured buggers, and also puts me off modelling more and more decorative stuff, which I feel is a shame. However I have seen nothing in the RAW that could distinguish between wargear or decorative items, and the bits that should hurt you if you shoot at them. Could anyone elucidate further on this?

It also raises another question, if this isn't going OT: the fire prism (just to name one example among many) can angle itself round the corner f a building with just its gun poking out. If you have ever played a game like World of Tanks you will know how it is a "realistic" tactic outside of 40k, and one that makes some AFV's significantly better designed than others. Up to now we have agreed that basically "if I can see you you can see me" and I mostly do it because of the definite cover save, and that it will be out of LOS of other units. However, if it counts as "wargear" and cannot be shot at (if you are right on this point) then that is even better, to the point of being downright cheesy. Is this right?

To be shot at a part of your body (head/torso/arms/legs) must be visibly. It wouldn't fit with this rules if the only visible part would be a banner as far as I can see.
About the fire prism with only the gun poking out, you'll have a part of the turret and the back of the vehicle visible to the enemy most likely, meaning that you'd be shot at your side armor with a cover save. Seems to work alright.
My assumption that it shouldn't be counted comes from the fact that things like dozer blades don't count (it's an example of what shouldn't be counted as part of the hull in the vehicle rules). That part is still only my interpretation though

Thanks guys that really cleared things up.
Considering that the barrel of the gun is wargear and not hull however if only that is poking out then many things that could previously shoot me (under our shared misconception of the rules) cannot. I absolutely grasp what you have been saying: the thing the gun shot at will, as will anything else nearby that can see back down the barrel of the gun, but many things won't. This pleases me greatly, especially as I can see myself popping out to destroy the only thing that could fire back at me in a good few circumstances!

Test out your prism today! With the turret positioned so far back, and the gun to the far right of the turret, it is nuts how little you have to expose to shoot the enemy when it is angled at 90 degrees or more to the right. Looks cool doing it too, like a proper tank hunter! See also the oft-maligned Vyper.

These have always been my favorite bits of 40k tactics: the bit that doesn't come down to mathhammer and statistics, but those things that are more than a sum of the unit's parts.

When you go to tournaments, to prevent the whine about modeling for advantage, grab a wide, flat cylinder (washers from home improvement store) and place your flying base on those to prop it back up to the 'proper' height. No one can complain about that during tourneys, and when playing with friends your friend will be the one making that call about the flight stand, so you can ask them.

You Sir, are a genius.

As long as you were using true LOS then lower bases is both and advantage and disadvantage as terrain would be harder to see over and more units you shoot at would get cover too.

But for tourneys, I like the guys idea about using washers to raise them back up if anyone makes a stink.

Yeah it is a great shout. I like how they look now and would hate to have to invest in more. A quick fix for a limited set of circumstances is just what was needed.

If you're lower to the ground you have less line of sight, so it's a trade off either way. What is the exact distance of your skimmers off of the ground vs the "standard" base heights? I do the same thing as you but I use the large flying stems, which means that they are a little taller than the small stems. This helps prevent them from snapping off.

I will measure when I get home!

Yes its a great way of getting a bit more stability and safety. I used the smaller ones as they taper out at a more obtuse degree, which I found helped for the intended purpose.

I just have one question. Would you treat it as if it was at the correct height? If yes, you are not MFA.

You could just ad a bit of thickness to the bottom of the base to make it normal hight when playing in tournaments by attatching some pieces of card to the bottom with tape to get back those couple MM

I love how the preferred solution to perceived cheating is actual cheating (ignoring the line of sight rules)

(Not intended as a dig on anyone, I just find it funny)

That said grabbing some washers to stick then to seems a very good solution for picky opponents.

 Happyjew wrote:
I just have one question. Would you treat it as if it was at the correct height? If yes, you are not MFA.

This.

I didnt place those fins on my wave serpents cause I didnt like them. Takes away from the smoothness of the skimmer and not 1 person has said anything about them "missing their fins" I have also turned a falcon into a wave serpent by putting a FW turret on top. Nobody has said anything. Then again I dont go to tournaments because I dont want to be subjected to some of the idiocy that goes on there (modeling for advantage, can't strafe tracked vehicles, do psychic powers stack, LoS this and that)

Definitely go with the raised base idea for tournoments, putting your hull down is an advantage not only because of terrain but it also blocks units behind it more easily. Falcons as Wave serpents is something most people wont even notice tbh, but as your running both in the same army you could potentially have people give you grief about your small wave serpents v.s. your big ones, most people probably wont care, but it only takes one to ruin your tournoment expierience, talk it over with your opponents before hand just to make sure they are ok with it.

Here is a simple 4 question test to determine if you have "modeled for advantage".

1) Does Game Workshop have a proper model to represent this charact/unit?

2) Is my model noticeably different from the proper model?

3) Am I aware of any reasonable advantage this difference would make?

4) Do I insist I gain this advantage even though its not certain I would not have this advantage if I was using the proper model.


If you answered 'no' to any of these questions, you did not model for advantage. The 4th is the most tricky. You might think a your model is hidden behind cover, while your opponent thinks its only hidden because you modified it. If you have the proper model to swap in you can settle the disagreement right away, but odds are you wont. In situations like this I find its best to let your opponent have your way as this disagreement has stemmed from your decision to use a non standard model.

To the OP I know what you mean about the flying stands being unstable. On my Tau skimmers the tiny bit at the end which the vehicle sits on always broke and when I eventually ran out of flying stand I got sick if it and put them on the table without them. But I did a few months ago buy another pack of them from GW and make the hole bigger in the model and push the stand into the model so it was on the thicker part of the rod. It has stopped them breaking off, falling over and being unstable and it only lowered my tanks about 5mm.

I'd be surprised if the lowering of the stands drops them below what the smallest stands would be. Those little things are actually very low, and only leave <5mm clearance from the hull to the ground. I made myself some laser cut magnetised stands for my Eldar tanks and was surprised as just how low I could go and still stay at the same level as those small options...

Yeah I think I am pretty happy with how to resolve this.

a) I don't think they are significantly lower than the lowest stand. As mejendie says, those are pretty low anyway.

b) My intentions were honourable, and my regular opponents are aware of this.

c) When going to tournaments, something to blu-tac to the underside of the base should satisfy people on the height issue. On the falcon-to-serpent issue, it seems like a pretty easy question to the TOs before hand. I have three "official" serpents, so thats enough to build most lists I want.

Plus, as a quick aside falcons kick more ass than they are given credit for. Mathammer "DPP" approaches always paint a limited picture, and don't account for the units role in your wider army, nor for its utility outside of damage output. Mobile Str 8 should never be sniffed at! Plus side-armour hunting means that they often have a reason to advance up the field, and thus make good transports for dragons and scorpions. If you have the points CTM and star engines can bring out some amazing use for them too - flat out 24 plus two str 8 shots - what else can do that?

Apologies for that last point being so OT, I just couldn't resist. I feel like I am turning my back on my beloved birds of prey!

Hi mate,

I play orks, and every vehicle in my (in progress) army is converted. As such, not a single one is the same height/width/length of a normal trukk/dakkajet/BW etc..

My view is, you made your army look the way you like it, and the idea actually sounds really cool. As you say, they are skimmers, not flyers.

Just my 2 pennies worth.

As far as modeling for advantage, the only one who might try to claim that you'd get more cover from being lower to the ground would be yourself. I don't think any other players would tell you that you're somehow more obscured than you would. Be honest about it when you roll your cover saves. It'd only be a problem if you modeled them that way and then tried to take advantage of it during a tourney game.

If you dont tell them tht you lowered the flight stands a bit then for the most part nobody will ever notice.

There is a page in the rule book that states quite definitively that banners CAN NOT be shot at! As not to penalise players for "pretty modelling". I do not have the book to hand I'm afraid, but there is no way he should be able to shoot at things like banners!

@Khaine's Wrath
Yeah pal I checked this out after some previous posters mentioned it and found the rule - It is in the first few pages of the rule book (the bit where they explain to you what a D6 is, and other such handy tips) so I kind of skimmed and missed it.

@Drakenfels
I play orks too and have stuff in all shapes and sizes. Its funny how a minor modification to an otherwise standard kit often raises more suspicion than a full on kitbash or scratchbuild! On another note i checked out your gallery as these vehicles you spoke of sound interesting, didn't see anything like that but I am loving the old school bad moons!

I personally consider that arms don't count for line of sight. I figure that legs, torso and head represent the model as an individual. If I can only see the arms I don't consider that to be line of sight. I don't enforce that on my opponent but it's the way I play