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.

If the models dont fit in a space, you cant just stack them on top of each other. Clearly doing it to take advantage of cover in areas they would not fit, with the best line of sight available to them. Its against the rules, I dont care how good the army looks or how much care someone takes in making them. This is rules abuse.

If you think otherwise I would like to hear why.

Are those Sniper Teams?

Technically they could be on 2 25mm bases, but since the player has opted to put them on 60mms, then they need to abide by any rules where bases are involved, unless they can agree on a compromise with their opponent before the game starts. Stacking bases is definitely an illegal move regardless.

Some context would be good to determine if he is *cheating* or not though.

G.A

That's iffy. RAW I think it is cheating, but I would let them do it. Heavy weapon teams got nerfed back in 5th and used to be two models that were separate, only on one base for convenience. So I don't personally care, but you could certainly call a judge at an event or whatever!

1st picture - I'm going with "yes" because one base is physically sitting on top of another one. If he'd had a 25mm model sitting "underneath" the perched HWT I'd be tempted to allow that.

2nd picture - Unambiguous yes.

If you are going to vote no, please elaborate. I would love to hear this.

I'm ambivalent (I don't play current 40K but here's my take anyway) towards it.

On one hand I hate stupidly large bases (and buckets of cork on every base, etc.) and part of me thinks "hah, that's the price you pay for ridiculous basing of wargames miniatures!".

On the other hand they're snipers and heavy weapons teams and it appears that...sans ridiculous bases, they would fit fine where they are. In the first picture for example, you could easily fit three heavy bolter teams on the top of that bunker, so I wouldn't think much of it if I was playing against a friend (despite giving said friend unending amounts of gak for basing figures on 60-80mm discs...).

Same goes for the snipers. They're based as modeling dioramas forced into a wargame so...shame on the builder - that's dumb. But, I don't see why the sniper team couldn't fit in that building where they're posted.

On the same topic, I would absolutely not allow any Space Marine diving off a 6" plinth to ever have a cover save...ever.

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. If those are HWTs then it's cheating, they're supposed to be on 60mm bases and you can't just stack them on top of each other to remove the drawbacks of a 60mm base. However, in the first picture it looks like the models would still fit if you carefully rearranged them, so it's more a case of WMS and not taking the effort to carefully balance everything in a situation where it doesn't matter, not cheating to gain an advantage.

 Orock wrote:
If you are going to vote no, please elaborate. I would love to hear this.

I'll vote no if you cannot clarify the situation further - it is possible that the player agreed with his opponent that this would be okay before the move was made, as typically Special Weapon Teams are 6 separate models on 25mm bases (not 3 on 60mms like Heavy Weapon Teams), which would probably fit fine in those spaces.

It's certainly an illegal move in terms of RAW, but that does not mean this player was necessarily cheating.

I don't think it's cheating.

The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space. However, if I were the IG player, I would say that any of my opponents weapons that could draw range to the squad and LOS to the front wall of the building can target the squad. Also I would happily allow for templates to affect the base hidden underneath another bases.

It's also worth noting that they are IG heavy weapon teams, so the models are designed to be crouching and kneeling.

It's also worth noting that I am a very laid back and relaxed tabletop gamer, and a heavy weapons squad on the ramparts laying down fire is lore-compliant and meets my criteria for "rule of cool" sufficiently to make notable exceptions for.

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So? Cover not having space to fit all the models you want is part of the game. Should the IG player be able to pile a 50-man conscript squad onto the top of the building and justify the model stacking with "I can't fit it any other way"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So? Cover not having space to fit all the models you want is part of the game. Should the IG player be able to pile a 50-man conscript squad onto the top of the building and justify the model stacking with "I can't fit it any other way"?

Yeah, my main anti-tank weapon can't shoot in any direction but up according to the actual rules of the game. I am beyond caring about strict adherence to RAW when it comes to playing 40k, so I don't really care about bending or outright breaking the rules of the game if my opponent and I agree it would make the game more fun.

SO many times i've put something that had a very large base on something where it obviously could not fit, but no where in the rules is there something that prevents me from doing it.

Its not cheating if the space is obviously open and if the model without the basecould fit, because more then enough you have rubble or gaks in the way that are put there on the terrain to make it look pretty/good.

i mean the interior of some ruins in our LGS while gorgeous is just a Pain in the Arse to actually fit the models, and we end up with 3 models perfectly straigth and all the rest just dumped next to them or behind them in some kind of mess.

thats why there is the WMS rule...

on the second pic its pretty clear that the guy wouldn't do otherwise, i mean the small walls on the last floor is in the way, but since its a ruin and not something with impassable terrain/walls, its not like it would make any change.

he could have put the model wiht the base half over the edge, but the guy maybe doesn't want the model to fall from this height?

If it was an impassible terrain piece, yup that would be cheating, because he wants to avoid the consequances, but here?, no its just practicallity.

I'm not going to vote because I'd say the answer is "it depends".
Technically any kind of stacking would be cheating, but often times they would fit but they don't actually fit due to wobbly model syndrome. I'm totally fine with stacking them in that case.

In your pictures, the heavy weapon teams and infantry look like they might fit if you could place the 25mm ones on the platform around the gun, so I'd give it a pass. And for the second picture, I thought the snipers come on bike bases? In that case they would fit and I'd let this ass too.

I'm alright with the first photo, overall the top of the building is large and filled with obstacles, and I think some fudging is ok. However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm alright with the first photo, overall the top of the building is large and filled with obstacles, and I think some fudging is ok. However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

I agree with this.

The first photo to me is fine, that's to me just practical acknowledgement that bases and scenic terrain don't always mix, there's enough 2D surface area but because of the artificiality of the bases stuff gets weird, wobbly model syndrome stuff. That's ok.

The second pic however, one of those dudes has to move down, there's not enough area for them up there, that's not an issue of bases doing weird things, that's straight up no room and is something I would call out.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Its not cheating if the space is obviously open and if the model without the basecould fit

That's not the rule. Rule is that you can't stack bases on top of other bases. You can sit a model with a big base on top of terrain, or even leave it out of the terrain and have it count as being in there, that's absolutely fine - but you can't sit bases on top of other bases under any circumstances.

If you ask and your opponent agrees that is what it is - personally I'd probably be fine with it provided you didn't gain some undue advantage from doing it. If an opponent went ahead and did it without asking though, I'd pull him up.

Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

Regarding the modeling choices for the snipers, I think the creator was going for sniper/spotter teams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, for the love of...

Those are Armageddon Steel Legion snipers. From what I recall they come with those bases and the models may quite easily be old enough they predate the days of Special Weapon Squads. I played IG back in 3e, some of my Catachan models didn't have bases at all.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

You can't put bases on top of other bases. Period. Pic 1 is borderline, because the bases are just touching and not really "stacked" per se, but pic 2 has a base sitting on top of two other bases. That's pretty flagrant.

 BBAP wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

You can't put bases on top of other bases. Period. Pic 1 is borderline, because the bases are just touching and not really "stacked" per se, but pic 2 has a base sitting on top of two other bases. That's pretty flagrant.

How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

 Pouncey wrote:
How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

If the one on top isn't being directly supported by the one below it that'd be good enough for me. That first picture seems like a base sitting beneath another base that's supported by the terrain piece. I'd be happy with that, although it's a borderline case, like I said.

The second one is a base sitting directly on top of two other bases, which is not allowed. If it won't fit then split the unit between levels. The "no stacking" rule exists precisely to keep people from cramming units into spaces where they won't fit.

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

 BBAP wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

If the one on top isn't being directly supported by the one below it that'd be good enough for me. That first picture seems like a base sitting beneath another base that's supported by the terrain piece. I'd be happy with that, although it's a borderline case, like I said.

The second one is a base sitting directly on top of two other bases, which is not allowed. If it won't fit then split the unit between levels. The "no stacking" rule exists precisely to keep people from cramming units into spaces where they won't fit.

That's a reasonable line to draw, and I agree with it.

Edit: Every time I look at that second picture, it's different from what I remember. What the feth, brain?

Is it against the rules?
Yes.
Would I demand the judge for it?
Depends. If it's just the first one, probably not. If there's multiple units doing it or he does it again, probably.

Is it cheating? Yes.
Would I call him on it? Not if I have barrage weapons. . .

I don't know about "cheating", but those bases looked really big, and they looked like they were ultimately stacked upon each other. Maybe modeling for advantage (so he could stack on the terrain)? If not, he was still stacking, which is a no-go.

A model(s) should be able to stand in/on the terrain it is placed upon, without stacking on or over other bases (on the same level). Like others have said, you can't stack bases.

In real life, there might be a building where only a few soldiers can deploy on a certain floor because parts of the floor have collapsed. Because of that constraint, they might not be able to deploy heavy weapons.

Most ruins in 40K are just that, ruins, which have spatial limitations. There aren't intact floors.

I don't like what I saw. Not ready to call it cheating (unless the dude doing it claimed it was legit by the rules, and pressed it, in which case, yes, he was cheating.). I wouldn't give it a green light, unless it was a friendly game, and even then, I would call him on obvious BS.

Would anyone be cool with an opponent trying to fit a larger model up there, like a Knight or a dreadnought that can't fit, yet still claiming cover, maybe using a dowel or another part of the terrain piece as support, nevermind the obvious stacking of bases on a level?

I don't think so.

As said a few times now:

If we're doing RAW, then it is cheating.

That being said, did you and the other player come to an agreement about whether or not it was cheating? In other words: Do you agree that, in spite of the base size, these Heavy Weapons Teams would have been able to realistically traverse such terrain and, as such, allow for the picture model placement?

Because it's cheating if you're going with RAW, but it becomes legal if you and all other players agree that it's reasonable and allow it. If you guys can't agree, then it remains illegal and thus is cheating.

I personally wouldn't allow it, but that's just me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

If they it is meant to be 6 models on 25mm I would probably allow it. However when my small blast hits directly on the middle base in the second pic I am claiming 6 hits, if you aren't taking the penalty for bigger bases then I'm not letting you benefit from it in the form of fewer hit's from blasts. (This is just considering the 3 bases on the top I would claim 2 more for each other base underneath)

If they are meant to be on that sized base however then you are not doing it.

 roflmajog wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

If they it is meant to be 6 models on 25mm I would probably allow it. However when my small blast hits directly on the middle base in the second pic I am claiming 6 hits, if you aren't taking the penalty for bigger bases then I'm not letting you benefit from it in the form of fewer hit's from blasts. (This is just considering the 3 bases on the top I would claim 2 more for each other base underneath)

If they are meant to be on that sized base however then you are not doing it.

Pretty much this Pie plate Everyone, if he calls judge you can just point out the bases stacking, win win