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.

To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.

Or if you really really dont want your models to be that tall then just put the clear rod into a base and put a ball of kids clay or something on top of it to use it as a proper LOS measure (Of course with the ball of clay being nearly the same size) if your opponents has a problem with it.

 aka_mythos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.

You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.

I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?

GW will send you the right ones for free.

And if you're unaware of the fact? It WAS the base the model was supplied with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.

You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.

I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?

GW will send you the right ones for free.

And if you're unaware of the fact? It WAS the base the model was supplied with.

The same thing that happens if you're unaware about a rule, or even better, your codex copy had a miss-ink and 16 wounds reads as 18, or if your squad of Scout marines accidentally gets a Hellblaster spree in there and you are new and don't know and model then all together and have scouts with assault plasma.

The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling

 SHUPPET wrote:
The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling

The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?

All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling

The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?

All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.

While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.

 Stux wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling

The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?

All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.

While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.

This.

Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.

Sure, you made them the same height.

And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.

Lemondish wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.

Sure, you made them the same height.

And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.

That's a good point though I would count them as transparent

 SHUPPET wrote:

This.

Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.

Lemondish wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.

Sure, you made them the same height.

And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.

Do flight stands block sight?
Do sandbags on bases give cover?

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't know a single damn person who would try to claim that a model that is modeled with a solid 'flight stand' equivalent blocks LOS.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.

Sure, you made them the same height.

And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.

Do flight stands block sight?
Do sandbags on bases give cover?

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't know a single damn person who would try to claim that a model that is modeled with a solid 'flight stand' equivalent blocks LOS.

It's not come up in a game for me, but they're generally so thin it's pretty unlikely that it will make a difference.

There is of course no explicit RAW on whether transparent materials block line of site!

It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.

ValentineGames wrote:
It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.

What else are we supposed talk about...?

Sound like tables need more floating rocks terrain. That way flight stand models can get cover while non-flight stand models don't.

However, if Marneus Calgar is to believed that might give anyone playing Necrons an unfavorable advantage as they can't help but trip over floating rocks.

Anyone got some good pics of their Suppressors on the ground? I'm getting a bit irate and the next resort is brass rods up the butthole for these guys.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Anyone got some good pics of their Suppressors on the ground? I'm getting a bit irate and the next resort is brass rods up the butthole for these guys.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/772394.page#10382353

 BaconCatBug wrote:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/772394.page#10382353

Thanks, man. I've got a lot of base-junk to throw down, that'll save me from having to tell someone "I shoved brass rods up space marines' buttholes this weekend".

 Stux wrote:
While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.

Near-universal ideals based on common sense, yes. However, these aren't set in stone, and are subject to the whims of the TO. Assuming that one TO will have the same ruling as another is not a safe assumption to make. As this thread has clearly shown, the things some perceive to be common sense are completely the opposite for others.

SHUPPET wrote:I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

My objective was to highlight that the idea of a single "actual competitive ruleset" doesn't exist universally, and it does all come down to the TO's decision.
I know you said that it was all a TO's decision, and I agree with that, which leaves me confused that you would try and suggest there's some kind of universal orverriding ruleset beyond the basic rules, which don't cover modelling for advantage.

Crimson wrote:Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.

This. There are no universal standards beyond the core rules, and even then, they're not completely watertight.

forgive me if this has been already said but would it not make sense if you can see the base of the model you can shoot? i mean we measure FROM the base so why not TO the base as well?

PLAYER A: "Hey, dude- it kinda looks like your Suppressors are modeled for advantage."

PLAYER B: "Yeah, it was a real pain to get them on their clear pegs. But I brought those pegs, I'll put it under the base and hold it where it would normally be flying so you can check line of sight."

PLAYER A: "Oh, thanks man, that's pretty much the same thing you do with wobbly model syndrome- and it works just fine. Thanks for being cool and doing that for me."

PLAYER B: "No problem, bro. Isn't this game so much more awesome and comfortable when you have friendly and simple solutions, rather than try to involve tournament persons?"

PLAYER A: "Yeah, man- it makes the entire environment friendlier, even when it's competitive."

PLAYER B: "YOU JUST BUMPED THAT LAND RAIDER YOU DILDO! T.O.! JUDGE! GUARDS! ARBITES! THIS MAN MADE THE TOY WIGGLE!"

Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

This.

Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.

Oh for sure. But as I said, it will come down to your T.O. at the end of the day. I'm just acknowledging that while there's no guarantee of anything, certain possibilities are less or more likely than others. I could give examples but it's probably not necessary, I'm sure we all agree on that right?

 Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.

What else are we supposed talk about...?

Well it's not like 40k players have time to do anything except talk.
They can't play the game after all.
Not when they spend years bitching about things that never happen. No time.
Or happened once to Harry. And now everyone gaks themselves over a none existent worry.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.

What else are we supposed talk about...?

Well it's not like 40k players have time to do anything except talk.
They can't play the game after all.
Not when they spend years bitching about things that never happen. No time.
Or happened once to Harry. And now everyone gaks themselves over a none existent worry.

I actually haven't been able to play recently, due to moving and a new job

Just saw these suppressors here.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/b2h2vn/my_fix_for_the_suppressor_bases/


If you want to remodel your own there's no reason you can't do something similar.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Just saw these suppressors here.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/b2h2vn/my_fix_for_the_suppressor_bases/


If you want to remodel your own there's no reason you can't do something similar.

I have tons of those bits laying around, and similar stuff. Good share, thanks!

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

This.

Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.

The only thing I'm really getting from this thread is that TLOS is a bad rule that chokes off a lot of cool and characterful modelling opportunities.

 Elemental wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

This.

Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.

Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.

The only thing I'm really getting from this thread is that TLOS is a bad rule that chokes off a lot of cool and characterful modelling opportunities.

I agree with that!

In principle I like the idea of systems that do everything base to base, and for the miniature on the base to be essentially purely aesthetic.

The issue is that 40k as it stands has an element of verticality, which causes issues but would be a shame to lose.

I've played games that do this though, such as Malifaux which has a quite abstract vertical element to it. Basically every model has a height characteristic. 1 is 'short things' like dogs and spooky children (it's a weird setting!), 2 is roughly human adult, and 3 is 'large things'.

Terrain features are also assigned a height value on this scale.

When you want to shoot something, you have to compare the height characteristic of the shooter, the target, and intervening terrain.

The abstraction does result in some weird situations where logically something doesn't quite add up, but frankly I'm ok with it because there is almost never any ambiguity as to whether a model has line of sight.

Basically, I'd be up for exploring something along these lines for 40k!

40k used to have a size statistic. There is a reason 40k no longer has one.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k used to have a size statistic. There is a reason 40k no longer has one.

Yeah? I was gone for several editions so I guess I missed it (unless it was in 2nd and I simply don't remember!).

Are you sure it's an inherently bad idea, and not just one that was poorly implement in that instance?

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
40k used to have a size statistic. There is a reason 40k no longer has one.

Yeah? I was gone for several editions so I guess I missed it (unless it was in 2nd and I simply don't remember!).

Are you sure it's an inherently bad idea, and not just one that was poorly implement in that instance?

It doesn't matter. Either it's an inherently bad idea, or GW are too incompetent to implement it correctly.