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.

Gwar! wrote:To which I reply: The rules don't say anything about abnormal basing being disallowed, the rules say I have to inform you of it.

I wasn't talking about the rules saying it wasn't allowed. I was talking about the fact that if you have a model assembled incorrectly, even just the smallest detail, people will invariably point it out.

glory wrote:I was referring to those 40 people who just pointed out that my base is assembled wrong.

They (or most of them) wouldn't be complaining... they would be being 'helpful'... ('Hey, did you realise that you have the flight stand assembled wrong?' ... 'Why is the flight stand assembled like that?' ... 'What's going on with that flight stand...?')

It was an extremely backwards way of commenting on the fact that the rules appear to work quite strangely when it comes to the Valkyrie model.

To be fair, we don't actually know how the rules work with the Valkyrie yet...

I thought the FW Valk had a huge flyer stick that was like 2 feet tall?

insaniak wrote:To be fair, we don't actually know how the rules work with the Valkyrie yet...

People who have seen the codex have not seen any special rules so far, besides deep striking out of it.

I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Melee is not static nor should standing models or skimmers be considered static. As far as changing the height of a base goes,I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function. I also wish GW would FAQ this, because armies like Tau are hurting enough as it is.

Blackarandras wrote:I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Melee is not static nor should standing models or skimmers be considered static. As far as changing the height of a base goes,I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function. I also wish GW would FAQ this, because armies like Tau are hurting enough as it is.

The problem is GW cant decide if they want an Abstract or Absolute rules system, and seem to flit between the two depending on what phase you are in.

Blackarandras wrote:I read in a White Dwarf that crouching models are considered to be able to see over barricades or similar types of terrain.

Which would be fine... if they actually included such a thing in the rules.

Why could it not be the case that standing models are considered crouching when it is called for?

Because both are incorrect. The rules for LOS work off the actual postition of the model.

They also mentioned that modeling MC's crouching to take advantage of the 50% cover rule does not work.

Again, not a part of the rules, which use the actual position of the model.

Modeling for advantage is frowned upon, and it can be argued that it's not allowed as the rules don't specifically allow conversions in the first place... but changing the positioning of the model does change its LOS profile.

I wish people would use some imagination when considering how skimmers function.

It's not a question of using imagination. GW have a ruleset that by and large revolves around the actual positioning of the models in use. Changing that adds in whole layers of complexity that simply aren't allowed for by the rules as they currently stand.

If you choose to add house rules allowing the models to change their height during the game, that's your choice, and just fine. But unless GW change their rules to reflect this more abstract style of play, don't expect everybody to automatically agree that your way is the way it should be played...

Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Modeling MC's crouching is of no advantage.

You are not penalized for modeling or basing artisically,but you must be reasonable and judge according to the standard model of that type.

Blackarandras wrote:Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Being something Jervis said in WD does not make it something that Allessio actually wrote in the rulebook...

Modeling MC's crouching is of no advantage.

It is if you're trying to hide it behind smaller obstacles than would be possible if it is standing up straight.

Again, the LOS rules use the actual profile of the model. That may or may not be the way that Jervis intended the LOS rules to work, but it is what's actually in the book, and the way LOS has worked for 5 editions of the game so far.

insaniak wrote:

Blackarandras wrote:Both are not incorrect,that is from Jervis' mouth,one is at lest correct.

Being something Jervis said in WD does not make it something that Allessio actually wrote in the rulebook...

Oh Emperors Bowels I'm Agreeing with insaniak, the End is Nigh!

But yes, Allessio wrote the rules. Unless we get it from his mouth on at least 4 verifiable video sources and in writing stamped with his blood, any comments on "rules as intended" have less than zero weight.

With that kind of logic then my Avatar and Wraith Lord are going to be lego men with pirate hats.

I know Jervis and WD are not authorities,but it makes sense.

Wait, no pirate hats that would make them to tall.

Blackarandras wrote:With that kind of logic then my Avatar and Wraith Lord are going to be lego men with pirate hats.

Well, you'll still have issues there... The rules only refer to 'the Citadel miniatures used to play Warhammer 40000' (page 3)... There are no rules allowing you to use anything else.

I know Jervis and WD are not authorities,but it makes sense.

From a certain point of view, and for a completely different ruleset, sure.

Given the way the 40K LOS rules are written, no, sorry, it makes no sense whatsoever to play that way. In a different game, where you weren't using the physical model as a reference point, then abstract poses are fine. But in a game that revolves around drawing LOS to an actual, physical model, using anything other than the actual, physical model just adds needless complication. You wind up with situations where you're drawing LOS to empty air where the model would be if you were using a completely different model... and that's guaranteed to cause more arguments than just using the model that you have on the table at the time.

I think you get my point about the lego men or at lest I hope so.

From a certain point of view one of the creators of this game made the above statements.

Abstract poses? Your the one that's pro kneeling MC's to take advantage of the rules.

Drawing lines of sight into empty air? Good thing your not a carpenter.

If you have a kneeling FW in a squad the whole squad should be able to draw(accurate)TLOS,as if they to were kneeling, without a problem.

Blackarandras wrote:I think you get my point about the lego men or at lest I hope so.

If your point was that you can come up with absurd ways to abuse a rule to show how silly it is, I did. The thing is, I'm not arguing that the rule can't be abused, or that LOS couldn't be handled better.

From a certain point of view one of the creators of this game made the above statements.

I would actually be curious to find out what it was he actually said, and the context behind it... I don't buy WD any more, so didn't see it.

Abstract poses? Your the one that's pro kneeling MC's to take advantage of the rules.

Where on earth do you get that idea?

I'm the one saying that rules work a particular way, and that modeling shouldn't be used for advantage. Nothing more.

Drawing lines of sight into empty air? Good thing your not a carpenter.

Should I be? In order to successfully play a miniatures wargame, I mean?

If you have a kneeling FW in a squad the whole squad should be able to draw(accurate)TLOS,as if they to were kneeling, without a problem.

And in a game that had rules to that effect, they would have LOS. Assuming that they satisfied all other conditions for LOS, of course.

But in Warhammer 40K, LOS is drawn on a model-by-model basis, and a given model only has LOS if the model actually has LOS.

I'm not claiming that's the best way to handle LOS... just the way the rules say to do it.

Ok then,I think we're actually on the same page,or close anyway.

GW doesn't sell a box of FW's or DA's all kneeling and I would hate to have to spend all that money just to pull off a legitimate Fish of Fury tactic.

They really have to FAQ the limits on conversions and TLOS for alot of reasons. Especially with all the cover saves.

I just think that if I can't pull off a good ol' FoF then you can't base your terminators on 1/4" rocks.

Also,I don't like the idea of putting my skimmers on higher stems,but I will until someone proves that I can't.

I also read that article about the kneeling and prone guardsmen. Basically JJ took the same stance he always does, and basically said you can 'count' him being able to see over the barricade in situations where you can't put the prone/kneeling model in place where he can see and shoot. But, basically if it can shoot, he can be shoot at also.

He also mentioned the same thing that is in the RB about models on large/scenic bases and/or in heroic poses. But, I think I may have missed the one about the monstrous creatures kneeling to take advantage thing though. But, I can see this as being along the same lines as the prone/kneeling guardsmen.

Which is great that JJ thinks the game should have certain rules.

But since GW did *not* write the rules that way... it is kind of moot. Perhaps the other designers disagree with him, perhaps he was stating his house rules, perhaps.... whatever.

the rules are clear. If you drop your FW behind your devilfish, and they can't see underneath it, they can't shoot. They don't get to 'pretend' that they are kneeling.

I've got some guard heavy weapon teams modelled in prone and crouching positions. Here are some pics before they were painted:


Most people think they are pretty neat little conversions but sometimes when I've got these guys deployed in ruins or behind barriers they have no LOS to anything at all. Everyone I've played with has no problem with them being able to shoot over obstructions in these situations (of course they can also recieve return fire too). However, saying an entire squad is prone or kneeling just to be able to shoot under something is a little gamey in my mind (I'm not really sure why either, it's basically the same thing).

Also, I think it's asumed that skimmers decend low to the ground to discharge their troops and then return to what ever altitude they happened to be modelled on. So, extended flying bases should pose no problem when it comes to disembarking. Note that the Valk is different because the fluff is that the troops actually bail out of the vehicle when it is still at high altitude and decend to ground with the aid of grav chutes.

By that logic, the caption of the picture on the last page of the daemon codex that says "No mortal can stand against daemons of the warp" would indicate that daemons can't lose ever. Going slightly off-topic, does it bug anyone else when a player uses skimmers without their appropriate base? I get there's the potential for damage, but it just annoys the crap outta me when people try to make up rules regarding them. I always just assume they're on a flight base even if they're not.

Well at the club I run we have a "Club" Flying base that people can use to determine LOS if people have models that are meant to be on one but aren't.

I understand peoples point about it not being written in the BRB,but lets consider some other rules that require some imagination.

On page 14 it says,"models may move through walls, closed doors and windows,and all sort of similarly solid obstacles."

Then it goes on to say,"This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows,using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on.

So a squad bashes it's way through a solid wall,but there's no hole in it place,and they can't be shot at if completely on the other side. Not exactly written,but makes sense or that's the way it's played.

Jet packs or Jump Infantry are in some ruins,out of LOS from the enemy,and want to JSJ or just jump. Does this mean that you measure their movements on a vertical plan and therefore they will never be allowed to jump over things. Takes a little imagination.

With FW's and TLOS underneath a skimmer it is no stretch or even really a house rule in my opinion for them to shoot under their skimmer. You have FW's modeled crouching that can see perfectly fine under the skimmer. Should you have to buy multiple box sets to make at lest one squad that can FoF?I don't think so. What about the pathfinder model with the rail rifle that's lying on the ground,can he not shot over barricades?

I am the type of player that likes to abide by the rules,but I don't think this is some stretch or cheap niche.

Declaring whats what in the beginning of the game is not house rules unless it goes outside of the RB,which I don't think that this does.

That's a good point, you do need imagination to make this game work. It is a fantasy game afterall. But @ cannerus' point, it really does annoy me. I know it takes some imagination, but I feel like when people change bases SPECIFICALLY to gain an advantage it's just a little south of good gamesmanship.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be imaginative, but to me when I see someone spending lots of money and putting something together that gains them an advantage that other people don't have without having to spend a ton more money that is a bit irksome.

Well, lets not kid ourselves. Those who have the most money will ALWAYS have an advantage in any hobby you care to think of.

In Magic, more money means they can afford the better cards.
In Airsoft, better equipment.
In D&D, I have more books than you!

And so on and so forth. Doesn't make it sporting though.

Well I'm not debating whether or not it will happen, because you're right... It always will. Those who have the money have the power. Unfortunately that's the way it'll always be I think as long as people around. I guess it all comes back to the companies being fair. And unfortunately, those are the guys with the money... We're screwed either way!!!

Sorry, but they don't work that way.

Blackarandras wrote:I understand peoples point about it not being written in the BRB,but lets consider some other rules that require some imagination.

On page 14 it says,"models may move through walls, closed doors and windows,and all sort of similarly solid obstacles."

Then it goes on to say,"This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows,using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on.
So a squad bashes it's way through a solid wall,but there's no hole in it place,and they can't be shot at if completely on the other side. Not exactly written,but makes sense or that's the way it's played.

That is an optional rule. The other option is to play they can only go through 'openings' If you choose to play the former, and don't want to 'modify' the terrain, yes you must use your imagination.

Jet packs or Jump Infantry are in some ruins,out of LOS from the enemy,and want to JSJ or just jump. Does this mean that you measure their movements on a vertical plan and therefore they will never be allowed to jump over things. Takes a little imagination.

Nope. Rules work just as written. it says they can move over terrain freely. thus you don't have to worry about how high it is.

With FW's and TLOS underneath a skimmer it is no stretch or even really a house rule in my opinion for them to shoot under their skimmer. You have FW's modeled crouching that can see perfectly fine under the skimmer. Should you have to buy multiple box sets to make at lest one squad that can FoF?I don't think so. What about the pathfinder model with the rail rifle that's lying on the ground,can he not shot over barricades?

Not sure why you keep asking these questions. the rules are quite clearly written. You can shoot what the model can 'see'. If it is prone, then it can see less. If it is standing, it probably won't be able to shoot under a skimmer. Pretty simple actually.
OTOH, I can't shoot at your stealers and say "If they were standing up straight, I would be able to see them"

We are playing a game with little army men. Why not get the benefit of doing that? If the little army man can see, he can shoot. If you can't see the little army man, then you can't shoot at him. And thus I can to position my little army men so they can see, or so that others can't see me.
Otherwise, I could just use cardboard chits.

I am the type of player that likes to abide by the rules,but I don't think this is some stretch or cheap niche.

Declaring whats what in the beginning of the game is not house rules unless it goes outside of the RB,which I don't think that this does.

I won't comment if it is a stretch, or cheap niche. But it is *clearly* a house rule. There is *nothing* in the (rather extensive) LoS rules that say you can pretend the model is standing up, or kneeling down, or if the target is doing likewise.

coredump,you didn't comprehend my angle according to your comments.

Saying that this is a house rule is the same as saying that defining terrain pieces at the beginning of a game is a house rule.

Your answer to my jet pack statement shows you really didn't understand what I meant.

If you think the rules are so cut and dry why do you think there's a debate?

We play a little army men game that tries to simulate reality.

There has always been a problem with people thinking that their interpretation of written word is the correct one,myself included,look at the Bible.

The fact is, people have different views on EVERYTHING. No two people will ever fully agree on more than a single sentence. As your statement about the Bible clearly states. As a Lutheran/Calvanist I have my interpretation of Scripture, Catholics have theirs, Mormons have something completely different, JW's have their own, etc etc. We're all different and I think it just comes down to people respecting others' views and getting someone who's non-partial to be an intermediary.

I'm an atheist donkey-cave, I'm about as impartial as they come.

And I declare Fridays will be Miniskirt Day!

yeah this arguments kinda run aground now hasn't it?

EDIT: Emperors bowels that is the most sidesplitting use of a profanity filter I have ever seen! I'm stealing that one.

I must say that I am fairly surprised by the answers in this thread.

I would have assumed that you simply cannot shoot under a skimmer. I argue it is a slippery slope to open that option.

If you allow shooting under "flying" units, do you allow flamer templates? What about those tricky weapons that hit everything in a straight line from the firer; do flying units rise above the danger?

Oh yeah, and I would also like to address pretending to kneel behind other units in order to get LOS. Nope, only units within a squad are cohesive enough to do this, that is why members of one's own squad don't impede LOS but also why you cannot fire through other friendly units. Funny, this is yet another argument why you should not be able to have LOS under flying units.

Deuce11 wrote:I must say that I am fairly surprised by the answers in this thread.

I would have assumed that you simply cannot shoot under a skimmer. I argue it is a slippery slope to open that option.

If you allow shooting under "flying" units, do you allow flamer templates? What about those tricky weapons that hit everything in a straight line from the firer; do flying units rise above the danger?

In both of your examples there, you could say "Oh, I fired it when the skimmer was low" or "The shot was fired when the skimmer was low" while I could just as easily say "They deployed and have to shoot the enemy, the pilot is hardly gonna hug the ground blowing raspberries at the troops outside before getting shot to bits by the enemy". The easiest was to avoid any arguments is to just model the damn skimmer at the right hight to allow the tactic to work.

GWAR, you wrote "The easiest was to avoid any arguments is to just model the damn skimmer at the right hight to allow the tactic to work."

GWAR, I usually defer to your opinions. They are well thought out and most often a strong interpretation of the RAW. But I must disagree with you on this one.

GW openly promotes modeling in 5th Ed., and thus is a policy worth supporting. The easiest way is a bright line rule, no shooting under flying units.