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.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Son 0f Dorn wrote:
But if it explodes, any marines that can't fit in the MUCH smaller footprint are killed outright. Balances out somewhat.

Can't they still emergency disembark?

Yes, but that won't help in a Wrecked-Explodes outcome, for 2 reasons:

1) Emergency disembark is only for when you cannot get out of a Vehicle via access points.

2) With the Explodes result the passengers never disembark, they are just there while the vehicle explodes around them.

^ Correct. Has screwed my friend over with orks on a couple occations. BW footprint is pretty small when it's all the way full.

Just leave it on the sprues, that way it's really flat and cannot be shot.

Can't believe this thread is still going...

You can't model for advantage. Period.

Don't play dumb. Don't be outright stupid. You can't do it.

DUH!

Son 0f Dorn wrote:^ Correct. Has screwed my friend over with orks on a couple occations. BW footprint is pretty small when it's all the way full.

What did he have inside? There is no problem fitting about 25 boyz in its footprint.

Emergency disembark happens on a wreck, if they cannot disembark normally.

Explosion, you place as many models in the footprint of the vehicle as possible. I don't recall reading anything that models not in the footprint get destroyed.

As for the modelling, I have run into this situation before. The player use TL Lascannon razorbacks and modelled the Lascannons about 2 inchs higher then they are supposed to be (think parascope). He hid them behind predators, giving them clear lines of fire, but if they were shot at they had 3+ cover.

The worst part about it was the GW employees were ok with that. The player said it looked "cooler", even though he was clearly using it to his advantage. I could not convince anyone in the store that it was wrong.

scubasteve04 wrote:Emergency disembark happens on a wreck, if they cannot disembark normally.

You CAn emergency disembark from a WRECKED, but you may not place models on top of the wreck as it doesn;t become terrain until after the disembark. Which means a totally surrounded wreck = dead everyone.

Explosion, you place as many models in the footprint of the vehicle as possible. I don't recall reading anything that models not in the footprint get destroyed.

The argument here is if if the placement is disembarking and becomes restricted by movement rules (IE: no movement within 1" of an enemy model) or if 'placement' overrides that rule. If you have to keep the 1" rule, a surrounded 'explodes' would leave very little room within the crater to place models if they had to maintain 1" distance.

Try to fit 10 marines in a rhino crater or 20 orks in a BW crater that is completely surrounded and keeping away from enemies by 1". Hell, Try to fit 20 orks in a BW crater completely surrounded period.
Of course it is a debated issue.

As for the modelling, I have run into this situation before. The player use TL Lascannon razorbacks and modelled the Lascannons about 2 inchs higher then they are supposed to be (think parascope). He hid them behind predators, giving them clear lines of fire, but if they were shot at they had 3+ cover.

The worst part about it was the GW employees were ok with that. The player said it looked "cooler", even though he was clearly using it to his advantage. I could not convince anyone in the store that it was wrong.

Are you saying he just did a really tall turret or he moved the sponsons to the turret? Rule of Cool would probably apply. If the model looked 'cool' I could see people letting it slide.

He used some plasticard to raise the TL Lascannons about 2 inches. It looked awful.

Jidmah wrote:

Son 0f Dorn wrote:^ Correct. Has screwed my friend over with orks on a couple occations. BW footprint is pretty small when it's all the way full.

What did he have inside? There is no problem fitting about 25 boyz in its footprint.

I had the front half surrounded and he couldn't be within an inch of my guys.

tbh, if the person you are playing against thinks you are trying to pull a fast one they will say so, and if you proceed to argue that your lower/altered base is in fact legal they will most likely get really annoyed/mad/enraged at/with you and pull out of the match. When they leave you can claim that this is the same as their forfeiting, because well, it is. Bask in this victory and know that it is the last time you will ever play them or anyone they know, for the news of your ill gotten win will soon spread.

When this happens you can delude yourself into thinking that they are intimidated by your mad skills but in reality you've simply become tfg and your name is mud.

In short, you become a social pariah in the wargamming community and you may as well sell your models because you will never again get a chance to use them.

Also any TO worth his/her salt will not allow an altered flying base no matter what arguments you make.

I think that's a bit over-the-top.

People have been altering flight stems, or using custom flight bases, for decades. Just like altering any other base, so long as it's not too abusive the vast majority of players just don't care.

We had similar discussions when the GW Valkyrie was intiitally released with the giant flight base, while people were still using the Forgeworld model that didn't come with a flight base at all.

So long as you're not trying to modify the base mid-game, it's really not an issue.

... I think MikeMcS has dropped out of the discussion since page 1, but I still think this would prove ... enlightening.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

nosferatu wrote:Easy. The English language.

So were you gonna come up with a rulebook page or use this garbage?

Forget about what we're telling you here. Go to the LGS, play it. See how that low-rider SR is received. Then, would you please report back to us how that went?

Where is your LGS? Some corroboration from other guys who play there would be helpful. Any of them dakkaites?

Brothererekose wrote: ... I think MikeMcS has dropped out of the discussion since page 1, but I still think this would prove ... enlightening.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

nosferatu wrote:Easy. The English language.

So were you gonna come up with a rulebook page or use this garbage?

Forget about what we're telling you here. Go to the LGS, play it. See how that low-rider SR is received. Then, would you please report back to us how that went?

Where is your LGS? Some corroboration from other guys who play there would be helpful. Any of them dakkaites?

I'm gonna make a really basic point here that everyone should already know - "I don't think your friends/TO/grandmother/Random Internet Judge of All Things Morality #3452094 would like it" and "It's not allowed by the rules" are two entirely seperate concepts. This is YMDC where, presumably, people would feel the need to back up their assertions about 40k rules with actual parts of the rulebook. In this thread there is a whole lot of opinion and not a lot of rulebook, and in the places where there IS someone using the rulebook, it's not a relevant rule, people are just hoping that the negative stigma associated with reducing your flyer's line of sight to other models will allow them to not have to logically defend their assertions.

MikeMcSomething wrote: This is YMDC where, presumably, people would feel the need to back up their assertions about 40k rules with actual parts of the rulebook.

That's true to a certain extent. But it's not the whole of what the forum is about.

Rules discussions should refer to the actual rules, yes. But they will also often include discussion on how the game is actually played, particularly where that differs significantly from what the rules actually say, or where the rules are not as clear as they could be.

In this particular situation, the rules on basing are rather sparse, and were covered very early on in the thread. Once that's out of the way, basing discussions very quickly wander over into 'how it's played' territory, as everyone has their own ideas on how strictly those rules should be appled.


For what it's worth, I don't agree that you would instantly be declared a social pariah for shortening the flight stem on your Storm Raven, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But it's handy to be aware of the fact that while a lot of players won't care, some do feel rather strongly about it.

Why not just build larger, and taller terrain? I built a small cliff side hill, which about 10 to 12 inches tall. I built it to specifically hide vehicles behind it, and since you and your opponent agree on terrain it is a not a big deal. My opponent will use it for the same thing.