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.

Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?

Nope. Rules should be that you can't abuse a flag/standard/big stick as a line of sight point so placing them on the ground should be the same. They look much better with their feet on the ground anyway.

i put my inceptors on the ground cause gluing them onto those stands was not a hassle i could be fething arsed with, and ive never had an issue

Keep in mind, this goes both ways. If you're lower to the ground and slightly harder to see...you're also seeing less. It shouldn't have any impact on the game.

Also, do you play in tournaments? If not, don't even worry about it. I don't know what major tournaments say about bases/flight bases, etc.

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind, this goes both ways. If you're lower to the ground and slightly harder to see...you're also seeing less. It shouldn't have any impact on the game.

Also, do you play in tournaments? If not, don't even worry about it. I don't know what major tournaments say about bases/flight bases, etc.

I disagree that it is a fair trade-off. With a smaller profile, you have much greater control of who sees you that far outweighs the limitations on what you can see. It will often make the difference between it being possible to block line of site and it not being possible.

As such for any vaguely competitive game I'd expect the height of the model to be more or less preserved.

I would personally model them however I wanted, and have a single miniature as a 'gaming aid' that was modeled correctly.

Then whenever it could be argued that the traditional flying placement would provide / prevent LOS, I would replace the 'gaming aid' with the miniature, and then replace back after checking. Job done, prettier miniatures, and no one can accuse you of modeling for advantage. Only downside is you need a spare mini.

Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.

Problem solved.

I built my Custodian Venatari (who are on the same base as the Inceptors/Suppressors) standing on corkboard "rocks" deliberately to avoid any modeling for advantage concerns by raising the height of the model standing on the ground to close to what it would be on the flight stand.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.

Problem solved.

Problem magnified if you're playing with people where flight stand/lack of flight stand would be an issue. Because how exactly do you trace LoS through a rock to a unit beyond them?

ccs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.

Problem solved.

Problem magnified if you're playing with people where flight stand/lack of flight stand would be an issue. Because how exactly do you trace LoS through a rock to a unit beyond them?

Treat the rock as the head? And then your opponent can shoot the rock to kill it?

This is why other games use silhouettes, that way you can accurately tell what an enemy can and cannot see of your model, even if you model your guys in weird poses (like up in the air or crouching).

Putting them on the ground limits their ability to see what they can shoot as well. It's a disadvantage that cuts both ways. If they fired indirectly though that would be a problem.

I would think it's not modeling for game advantage so much as for practicality. Those flying stands are effing terrible. We're supposed to glue the model to the stand at an external point, not a gap the end slots into. Plus, if they are glued to the stand, transporting them without breaking them off becomes a challenge. Assembling them with their feet on the bases avoids all those problems.

Plus, those guys probably don't fire their weapons while they're in the air anyway. Those are projectile weapons, and firing them while airborne would do hilarious things to their flight trajectory..

I totally hate the new flight stands. I ended up ditching those for my Inceptors. I used a nail. I cut it the right length, pushed it through the bottom of the base, and drilled a small hole in the bottom of the Inceptor's backpack. It's about 1000% more durable now.

As for the Suppressors… I don't like the looks of the models, although I do like the concept as a whole. I think I'll be using an Intercessor with a Sanguinary Guard jump pack and a Horus Heresy autocannon. I'll make the height up using some kind of basing.

I like the new curved flight stands more than the old peg flight stands but they are still terrible.

I can't really see it as modeling for advantage, because it cuts both ways, and it has a distinct aesthetic justification. As opposed to actual MfA situations, like doing weird things with gun placement, like both sponsons on the same side of a land raider.

I like the new stands personally, but apparently am in the minority. as for if not mounting on flight stand is modeling for advantage... not really, if its on the base it can't see over things to shoot, so many games are played on planet bowling ball that the stand make them see everything and everything see them. personally even on stands on the tables i play with plenty of los blocking terrain the height doesn't really affect anything but the look unless they are on a top story

I really wouldn't want to play with people would have a problem with this anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:
Putting them on the ground limits their ability to see what they can shoot as well. It's a disadvantage that cuts both ways. If they fired indirectly though that would be a problem.

As I say above, I think this is a cop out. I don't think the disadvantage is of the same order as the advantage, primarily because you control to a degree how you play to those advantages and disadvantages.

There will be many terrain features it would be impossible to get behind with the flying base, without you can hide. If you want to shoot you can usually just move a different way though.

 Bookwrack wrote:
I can't really see it as modeling for advantage, because it cuts both ways, and it has a distinct aesthetic justification. As opposed to actual MfA situations, like doing weird things with gun placement, like both sponsons on the same side of a land raider.

It cuts both ways but not equally favouring non flying stick

Of course 40k is so non-competive game that's least of it's worries

I don't play tournaments, and I can't really be convinced that Warhammer 40k has tight enough rules to worry about modeling for advantage. Well, unless it is pretty blatant.

With the suppressors, I see modeling them on the ground more as trying to make the models look less silly than trying to get some sort of advantage. They honestly don't look like they should in the air all that much given the size of assault marine jump packs. Be it they are less powerful or more high tech flight/jump systems. Less powerful means they can't, more high tech means they shouldn't allow the enemy a fun turkey shoot. Even Starship Troopers knew that.

Marines use suspensors to negate the weight/recoil from their heavy weapons, have done so since at least 2E.

If Tau, who are thousands of years lagging in tech can fire shoulder-braced rail rifles that can punch holes in tanks without becoming armless, I don’t have a problem with suppressors flying about hip-firing autocannons.

Anyways, I’ll be modeling mine flying and assuming 40K tech has some method to negate/reduce the recoil, by suspensors, thrusters, antigravity nodules or otherwise.

Stux wrote:...With a smaller profile, you have much greater control of who sees you that far outweighs the limitations on what you can see. It will often make the difference between it being possible to block line of site and it not being possible.

Don't you mean a lower profile? The flight stand doesn't affect the models actual size.

Stormonu wrote:If Tau, who are thousands of years lagging in tech can fire shoulder-braced rail rifles that can punch holes in tanks without becoming armless, I don’t have a problem with suppressors flying about hip-firing autocannons.

Aren't rail weapons recoil-less?

Technically it does, as the flight stand itself is part of the model and targetable. But I take your point.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?

T'au Crisis suits also come with flight stands, nobody has ever mentioned modelling for advantage with crisis suits having their feet on the ground. I hardly ever see them modelled on the flight stands.

Its fine, model them how you want. Either way has advantages and disadvantages. I would rather you be happy with the way your models look than worry about some supposed purity of modelling.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?

T'au Crisis suits also come with flight stands, nobody has ever mentioned modelling for advantage with crisis suits having their feet on the ground. I hardly ever see them modelled on the flight stands.

Its fine, model them how you want. Either way has advantages and disadvantages. I would rather you be happy with the way your models look than worry about some supposed purity of modelling.

Honestly, you are kind of swaying me here.

For a beer and pretzels style game at least, it certainly wouldn't phase me.

Its really not hard to raise the base up with cork so that their height remains the same and still looks good.


On the whole though, it doesn't actually make much of a difference in game. The models are hard to hide because of their "compensation" weapon and I wont throw a hissy fit if someone hides them behind some box's as now they get -1 to hit me when they move to shoot me back.

Glueing them onto the stand almost ruined my model... they just would not stick! I ended cutting them off and just putting them on the base.

The stands are utter gak, that's why you use brass rod instead of half of the odd solutions presented ITT, if a unit is meant to be "floating" it looks daft with its feet on the ground.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The stands are utter gak, that's why you use brass rod instead of half of the odd solutions presented ITT, if a unit is meant to be "floating" it looks daft with its feet on the ground.

Have you seen these models?