Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Flying bases: Tactical possibility?
Closed Thread
Old 30 Jun 2006, 06:43   #1 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 376
Default Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Well, I was thinking about this last night when attaching some of my drones to their bases. You know, usually we all use the large sized clear rods to make our models hover, which puts them a little above our standard firewarrior head. However, what would happen if we use instead the small plastic rods, those who come with the tank bases? in that case, drones would be flying very close to the ground and would not stand even to the firewarriors head.
You may be asking what is the whole point of all this, but think about LOS. By putting our drones flying low, they may hide under obstacles that would not cover them properly if flying high, thus rendering them out of sight and unable to be shot at all. If we use JSJ tactics with them we could jump them from cover, shoot, and return them to cover without the enemy being able to see them (they could hide even behind a standard barricade, or a small group of rocks, or even behind a low hill). I'm not talking to make use of cover saves, but to block their LOS completely. I'm looking closely to the BBB to see if this kind of tactics may work as I'm not sure how the LOS apply to this hovering models, but I wanted to also hear your oppinions (I would like to think that this could be the birth of new tactical possibilities, and this could be applied to make tanks fly very high to get the best point of view by using the large rods (and that's a thing I've not seen yet)).
__________________
MY CURRENT PROJECTS:
-TX-117 "Cuttlefish" Super-Heavy Flyer: 75%
-Tyranid Biotitan: 50%
-TYranid "Magma Corer": 0%
Kalten is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 06:49   #2 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 622
Send a message via AIM to Nuke
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Yes, I have considered that idea a few times myself. The new drones that I get are assembled with the small tank rods, or, if I can't find one, I just whittle down the long rod to be a short one. It looks cooler in some instanced, too, as a low flying drone tilted forward a bit with guns tilted up looks very aggressive.
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words, but a well-constructed sentence is worth a thousand pictures" -Use spell check, it's there for a reason.

"He who opens a school door, closes a prison." -Victor Hugo
Nuke is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 06:57   #3 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 742
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Well don't they count as Size 1 anyways, so it really shouldn't matter.

I know you mean small LOS questions, and not so much cover, but I don't believe a drone hovering slightly over a hill should be able to be spotted. An even if such a situation arises (and I can't think of that many times it would), I don't think the hovering height matters, Size 2 blocks 1, 3 blocks 2 and 1 etc. If a drone is hiding behind a Size 2 hill, even if it can be 'seen' the opponent shouldn't be able to draw LOS.

By the way, I put my drones on small 'rods' because I like the low to the ground look. Shield drones look great with them.
__________________
Dorkamorka
Exokan is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 08:38   #4 (permalink)
Shas'Saal
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 203
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Not quite - size classes only ever come into play for area terrain and close combats. Everything else uses real LoS, and yes, that means you can draw LoS between a Dreadnought's legs, though very few people play it that way.

And yeah, that's quite workable for drones. It's also why I haven't glued my vehicles onto their bases - if I encounter someone who insists on playing with strict LoS, I remove the bases (or just tape them to the bottom without the plastic stick if they want to be picky).
Gotchaye is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 09:33   #5 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Zeist
Posts: 929
Send a message via MSN to cyberzomby
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Well a while ago I opened up a topic on another forum asking for something like this 2

I was going to do an ethereal on a rock looking over the troops.
But than you would be at a huge disadvantage cause everyone can draw a line of sight to it.

Turns out the Ethereal is classes as a size one so he can hide behind size 2 and 3s. So even If I put it on a 1 meter high rock and I hide it behind a building of 30cms they still cant see it.

You draw line of sight to the base and if you can see 40% of the model or something you can see it ( thats how the bbb specifies it )
Else you could also just model a wall infront of youre mini and claim you cant see it at all because its behind a wall
cyberzomby is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 14:28   #6 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brampton Ont. Canada
Posts: 6,441
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

This is why I like to just use levels for LoS purposes. Making a model crouching/kneeling wont give an advantage, and putting him on a fancy rock wont make people see them all the time. Plus we all know that the hills we use while playing are not WYSIWYG (when was the last time you saw a hill with "steps" like that?)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch: the noob
Is it just me, or does Fish Ead really love to use a Dreadsock?...
I'd hate to get on his bad side... >
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiwaz
Fishy has just proved to me that Canadians CAN be scary...
Fish Ead is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 14:37   #7 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York city
Posts: 1,646
Send a message via AIM to DireStrike Send a message via MSN to DireStrike
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

We just had this argument about crisis suits on flying stands. The game should be played with the size classes where possible. The idea is to not penalize people for the way their models are assembled. If it worked that way, everybody's tournament models would be huddled at the bottom of their bases.

There are some exceptions to this, but the height an infantry model stands is not one of them IMO. All terrain, area or not, has a height classification and it should be used.

And you can't draw LOS through a dreadnought's legs since the model occupies the area of its base.
DireStrike is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 17:07   #8 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alachua, Florida
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via MSN to MalVeauX
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalten
You may be asking what is the whole point of all this, but think about LOS. By putting our drones flying low, they may hide under obstacles that would not cover them properly if flying high, thus rendering them out of sight and unable to be shot at all.
This will not do anything unfortunately. The classic example of attempted line of sight alternation via height change, is the Wraithlord modeled to be stooping. This is the most common, prior to 4th edition, method of attempting to deny line of sight to things that normally would have been seen.

The rules are clear. There is no "real line of sight" that is used. There are bases, size categories of models and size categories of terrain and area terrain. That's it. It all starts on page 20 (line of sight), if you're interested to read about it.

Reference: see page 7 to read what sizes are for models and why it's the base you use, and the size category when drawing line of sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exokan
Well don't they count as Size 1 anyways, so it really shouldn't matter.
-- Drones are not size 1 models. They are Size 2. You do not base the physical representation of a model's exact size to determine it's in-game category size. Nurglings, Rippers and Scarabs are all larger, model wise, than a Gun Drone. But those aforementioned contain the rules for small targets and swarms. Gun Drones do not contain any rules for small targets or swarms--thus are size 2, like most units in the game.

Nearly every normal model in the game is size 2. Vehicles & Monstrous Creatures are the size 3 models.

Small targets, ie: "Size 1" are noted in their profiles. An example would be Nurglings, who have the profile special rule: "Small targets." Being a small target grants them a special benefit when in cover as a universal special rule. Other examples include Rippers, Scarabs, etc. Swarms are also noted as "Small Targets" in their universal special rule. Any model with "Swarm" in it's profile and/or "Small Target" are the only models in the game that are size 1. Refer to page 75.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberzomby
Turns out the Ethereal is classes as a size one so he can hide behind size 2 and 3s. So even If I put it on a 1 meter high rock and I hide it behind a building of 30cms they still cant see it.
This is not correct I'm afraid. The Ethereal is a normal infantry unit type without small target or swarm special rules in the profile. He's size 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotchaye
Not quite - size classes only ever come into play for area terrain and close combats. Everything else uses real LoS, and yes, that means you can draw LoS between a Dreadnought's legs, though very few people play it that way.
This is also incorrect, unfortunately. Real line of sight is based on bases of models and their category size, compared to terrain and area terrain size and other models of comparable category sizes. You cannot fire at the tip of a wing just because you can see it. If there's something hiding the base that is the same category size or larger, it cannot be seen.

Your example with the dreadnought is a perfect example of how it does not work. You cannot see through the legs of a dreadnought. You cannot see through the base of that model at all, regardless of how it's modeled. The base is the sole measurement for width and it doesn't matter if you can see through legs or under an arm. Dreadnoughts are size 3 category models (vehicles, page 7). You cannot draw line of sight to anything behind the base of a Dreadnought, regardless if you can see through it's legs or not. He's size 3 and you can't see through that, ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Ead
This is why I like to just use levels for LoS purposes. Making a model crouching/kneeling wont give an advantage, and putting him on a fancy rock wont make people see them all the time. Plus we all know that the hills we use while playing are not WYSIWYG (when was the last time you saw a hill with "steps" like that?)
You are 100% correct. Line of sight is based on categorical sizes. Crouching/Kneeling/Bases etc, do not effect line of sight at all.
Terrain is classed before the game begins. It doesn't matter how it's modeled, it has a size category. You can either see over it or not, based on the size of your target and your unit's categorical size. Real line of sight, does not exist. So again, 100% correct Fish Ead.

DireStrike is also correct on both points.

--- Page 7 and 20 seem to be a very big part of the game that was missed by a great deal of people. I suggest everyone refreshes themselves.

The methods of 4th edition are far less confusing, more simplified and easier to use than the 3rd edition relics.

Cheers!
__________________
[table][tr][td][/td][td][table][tr][td] [/td][td]Apocalypse is the only way to forty-kay.[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table]
MalVeauX is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 21:46   #9 (permalink)
Shas'Saal
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 203
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

That position, while sensible, is not at all supported by the rules.

Page 7 has nothing to say about that - it remarks that the 3 size categories it gives are the only size categories that are relevant (which is fine, as true line of sight doesn't use different size categories, or any at all), and the last paragraph on the page makes it very clear that "when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant". At no point are we told to use these size categories to determine LoS over WYSIWYG non-area terrain or over other models.

Page 20 is equally clear. Your unit must be able to see the target unit, and occasionally you'll have to "stoop over the table for a model's eye view". In fact, it goes on to specify that the only time you don't use that exact method is when you're drawing LoS over area terrain or a close combat.

And no, you don't use the base. Models are considered to occupy the area of their base, fine, but that's not the same as saying that models are considered to occupy a cylinder the diameter of their base and the height of the model. It means only what it says - models occupy the ideally two-dimensional circle that their base covers. This is important for blast templates and close combat, and for judging range. Models actually are in the space that they're in, though, and this is what the rules tell us to use for LoS.
Gotchaye is offline  
Old 30 Jun 2006, 22:02   #10 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 376
Default Re: Flying bases: Tactical possibility?

To tell the truth I was just speculating about this fact. I myself have my drones flying as high as possible just because I like it. I would consider anyone playing that kind of tactics to his advantage a little cheesy. I thought Mal was quite right in his point about size categories although Gotchaye has made me doubt again. Bear in mind that if we make a drone hover so low that even a simple barricade can hide him, maybe it could not be seen, but also it could not see the enemy to shoot at, which should balance the equation (unless it does JSJ). Again I'm not going to use that kind of tricks, but I wanted to know about to avoid those being used against me.
BTW: Are XV-8 and XV-88 size 3?
__________________
MY CURRENT PROJECTS:
-TX-117 "Cuttlefish" Super-Heavy Flyer: 75%
-Tyranid Biotitan: 50%
-TYranid "Magma Corer": 0%
Kalten is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Size of GW flying bases? IcyCool General 40K 2 16 Mar 2009 21:44
Flying Bases - Help Needed Droids_Rule Hobby 12 06 Jul 2008 21:46
Flying bases for Tau ShasO KVor Tau 5 31 Jan 2008 01:44
Raiders vs. Flying Bases HoocH Dark Eldar 4 17 Dec 2007 00:30
Attaching Flying Bases to Large bases (For Crisis) MechTau Tau 15 17 Dec 2005 19:51