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.

My question is simple would this be allowed in itc rules the tree is the same height as a flyer stand barely anything hangs over the base The only deference is there is a tree instead of a clear stand

As long as nothing tries to claim cover or los blocking by it , I don’t see a problem
It’s rule of cool dude

It would probably come down to the individual tournament organiser but I think you would be OK.

Personally, I am more concerned how the pilot is going to see anything after you painted over his cockpit.

I like it. I painted my clear stands black. Where did you get the tree?

I don’t see a problem with it in most tournaments, your not getting any advantage out of it as long as it’s about the same height.

Does the tree count for LoS purposes?

 Smirrors wrote:
Does the tree count for LoS purposes?

Of course it does not.
Things modeled onto a base never count for LoS purposes. Only what is supposed to be there counts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Things modeled onto a base never count for LoS purposes. Only what is supposed to be there counts.

Of course it counts! How are you supposed to determine line of sight properly when something is blocking line of sight.

You're going to need a citation there at least.

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Things modeled onto a base never count for LoS purposes. Only what is supposed to be there counts.

Of course it counts! How are you supposed to determine line of sight properly when something is blocking line of sight.

You're going to need a citation there at least.

Why would anything that is not the model count?

Only models count for blocking Line of Sight.

" In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model." Page 5 40K Battle Primer.

It is talking about models being visible.

And from P. 2 of the 40K Battle Primer: " The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection"

They need to be "Citadel Miniatures" not "Citadel Miniatures" with extra stuff on them.

Oh this old debate again. The general consensus is usually, I believe, that stand and base are part of the model, given you’re measuring ranges to base, they physically block movement/LOS etc. If you agree otherwise with an opponent that’s fine, but ignoring bits of a model is not in 8th rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Does the tree count for LoS purposes?

Of course it does not.
Things modeled onto a base never count for LoS purposes. Only what is supposed to be there counts.

Yeah this simply isn’t supported by 8th’s rules. You won’t be able to cite anything to support this.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why would anything that is not the model count?

Only models count for blocking Line of Sight.

The base is part of the model, which invalidated most of what you said.

Anything you use for conversions is also clearly part of the model. If you scratch built an arm, you would surely count that as part of the model right? Base conversions are exactly the same, as base is part of the model.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh this old debate again. The general consensus is usually, I believe, that stand and base are part of the model, given you’re measuring ranges to base, they physically block movement/LOS etc. If you agree otherwise with an opponent that’s fine, but ignoring bits of a model is not in 8th rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Does the tree count for LoS purposes?

Of course it does not.
Things modeled onto a base never count for LoS purposes. Only what is supposed to be there counts.

Yeah this simply isn’t supported by 8th’s rules. You won’t be able to cite anything to support this.

Your comment is incorrect.

See below, the part about needing to use only "Citadel Miniatures"

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why would anything that is not the model count?

Only models count for blocking Line of Sight.

The base is part of the model, which invalidated most of what you said.

The base is, but the extra stuff is not a "Citadel Miniature".

Anything you use for conversions is also clearly part of the model.

Sure, but the rules tell you to use "Citadel Miniatures", and not "Citadel Miniatures" with extra garbage on them.

If you scratch built an arm, you would surely count that as part of the model right? Base conversions are exactly the same, as base is part of the model.

Again, the rules tell you to use "Citadel Miniatures", and not "Citadel Miniatures" with extra garbage on them.

Where is the permission to add trees to bases? Or anything extra?

I think the existence of the Citadel Basing Kit give you permission to add things to the base.

 alextroy wrote:
I think the existence of the Citadel Basing Kit give you permission to add things to the base.

Citation needed, because I can not find that in the rules anywhere.

So you're saying adding the tree is illegal by the rules anyway? Because you're only allowed to play with citadel miniatures?

Gotcha.

I’m waiting for anything based on the rules before I respond, DeathReaper, because that post above is... not. I admire your extrapolation efforts, but you’ve made stretching into an artform there.

 alextroy wrote:
I think the existence of the Citadel Basing Kit give you permission to add things to the base.

To be fair, that tree wasn't created with the citadel basing kit.

Its the aos elf tree set you get 3 of them in the box .
It is a gw product as well if thats help .
Good points so far

Rules-wise this is a bit of a grey area. Technically stuff on your base counts as the model and many of GW's models include scenic bases as part of the model, which could legitimately block LoS in some circumstances. However, you'd likely run into problems playing against someone if you tried to claim blocked LoS from your flyer's scenic base as this would likely be seen as modelling for advantage.

Note that purely from a rules perspective there's not a definitive prohibition on this sort of thing, as far as I'm aware, mainly due to GW's lack of definition for models and bases. But given this game is played between two human beings you should also be aware that trying to claim your base blocks LoS might mark you out as TFG. Also, I'd be genuinely surprised if any TO ruled that the base blocks LoS.

 Lovechunks wrote:
Its the aos elf tree set you get 3 of them in the box .
It is a gw product as well if thats help .
Good points so far also here is a ground view

Is there an actual ITC rules document concerning conversions?

If there isn't, this seems like the sort of thread that's just going to devolve into "How likely am I going to get in trouble for modeling for advantage?"

Because it's not like "How can I modify my fast moving models so that I can hide the rest of my forces behind them?" is a new idea that's never been tried before.

Edit: Although I think the original poster has managed to photograph the converted model at the worst possible angle, as far as things go.

Just gonna say, looks super cool! While not a TO, I'd happily play against that model.

I made it to match my jungle Bases on the rest of the army it look weird so want to incorporate some trees. Itc ruling on it is no model may claim cover and that it does not block los i carry i spare base. Incase i need to mark the spot.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m waiting for anything based on the rules before I respond, DeathReaper, because that post above is... not. I admire your extrapolation efforts, but you’ve made stretching into an artform there.

Which post are you referring to?
The one where I have cited rules for permission to use, and not "Citadel Miniatures" with extra garbage on them?

Because that is 100% in the rules. I even gave a page reference.

 Stux wrote:
So you're saying adding the tree is illegal by the rules anyway? Because you're only allowed to play with citadel miniatures?

Gotcha.

Yes, the rules tell you to use "Citadel Miniatures". There is no permission to use anything but a "Citadel Miniature" in conjunction with its Datasheet.

That being said, OP, I would play against that model as long as you do not use the extra stuff you added onto the model to gain a LoS advantage.

P.S. I like the jungle theme.

Again, you’ve twisted something that doesn’t apply and haven’t provided rules citations for ignoring parts of a model. What you’ve posted it two words, and extrapolated a load of (frankly) nonsense from that. You cannot support your hot take with rules, sorry.

And as posted the tree in question is a Citadel Miniature anyway, ahaha. Amazing.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Again, you’ve twisted something that doesn’t apply and haven’t provided rules citations for ignoring parts of a model. What you’ve posted it two words, and extrapolated a load of (frankly) nonsense from that. You cannot support your hot take with rules, sorry.

And as posted the tree in question is a Citadel Miniature anyway, ahaha. Amazing.

That tree is a different Citadel Miniature, so there are two Citadel Miniatures in that not one. The Datasheet does not allow for trees on the base, and neither do the rules. In fact one Citadel Miniature can not be on top of another Citadel Miniature...

P.S. I actually did support my position with rules.

So your position is not correct.

We are not "ignoring parts of a model". We are ignoring a model that is illegally placed on the base of a different model.

Dear god, some of these comments go far beyond stretching.

I’d honestly have no issue as the profile hasn’t been altered.
As long as it stays as a “flying stand” and isn’t used to block sight then it’s fine with me.
Seen a lot of similar things in tournaments too and it’s never been an issue.


To those going extreme saying it’s been altered and it’s not allowed, the second you paint a model you increase it’s size (even marginally)
So now you aren’t allowed to paint models either.
You must also assemble them exactly as they are on the box or your changing the model.

Jackal90 wrote:

To those going extreme saying it’s been altered and it’s not allowed, the second you paint a model you increase it’s size (even marginally)
So now you aren’t allowed to paint models either.
You must also assemble them exactly as they are on the box or your changing the model.

While your hyperbole is understandable, painting the models is permitted by the instructions, so the size increase due to paint has to be allowed for. But if you don’t think tournaments regulate things like this, and squads converted to crouching or leaping poses, there’s a whole bunch of people you’re going to be amazed to meet.

It’s been twenty five years, ain’t none of this new.