Flyer Base Stem: Modeling for Disadvantage?

[Nusquam]

Here's an interesting discussion I only see touched upon, but never expanded upon.

 

Is attaching your flyer to the stem actually modeling for disadvantage?

 

For example, the Stormraven: The top turret, if you equip it with an assault cannon it only effectively going to be ~8-24" range. For a gunship that can tilt forward to fire weapons while in hover, or angle when zooming the stem seems counter-intuitive and more like an easy solution to a complex problem. I have seen them modeled tilting forward which helps significantly but also doesn't account for the pilot using NOE (Nap-of-the-earth) flying to always be mere feet off the ground to avoid resent a target/detection. Only gaining altitude to clear obstacles.

 

The same can be said for 'Nid Crones who would most definitely use NOE as well.

 

There's no rule saying that we have to prop them up on the tip of the stem when modeling. I would also argue that it is modeling for disadvantage, rather than advantage.

 

Now hear me out. Take Daemon Princes for example. They are standing on the ground yet still count as "swooping" in game mechanics so the can more easily take cover saves and the like while still forcing units to take snap shots. Why should the Stormraven or 'Talon be propped way up high to present targets? If it were to be mounted lower it would also have a more difficult time shooting targets so there is a fair, IMHO, trade off.

 

Now the BRB says we have to use the base provided. That's easy enough, but things like stems or mounts aren't clarified. The GW website identifies these two pieces as "Flying Stem and Base". So the stem isn't part of the base, it's just something you can use to mount the flyer on.

 

The other side of the argument is that it would be modeling for advantage not to use the stem. At that point I would argue that not using the stem, or other hieght equivalent mount apparatus, with things that can "zoom" or "swoop", I.E. Winged Daemon Princes and the like, is modeling for advantage.

 

Another part of that argument is that DP kits don't come with a stem or mount so how can you model it up in the air if you aren't provided with anything? Just like you can't use 4 lascannons with the Devastator box. You need to buy beyond the initial kit.

 

So what does the community here think? Is it modeling for advantage, disadvantage? Is there an unfair divide between things like winged MCs and flyers? Does the flying stem ruin any logic and tactics an experienced pilot would actually use?
 

[Komrk]

Well the Storm Talon has the option to have the rear landing gear extended as if landed/landing so you could theoretically do that and jsut glue it to the base since it is a provided option.

[Hand of Sigismund]

Would it fall under conversion? kinda like when you make your own dread guns it can make your range longer or shorter than the original length of the GW made weapon.(if GW even made a weapon for it). So I would see no big deal changing the stem around unless when GW stated the base the stem and base are one and the same to them.

[Nusquam]

Well the Storm Talon has the option to have the rear landing gear extended as if landed/landing so you could theoretically do that and jsut glue it to the base since it is a provided option.

 

That makes sense, especially if you want troops to get out without falling to their deaths haha.

 

Would it fall under conversion? kinda like when you make your own dread guns it can make your range longer or shorter than the original length of the GW made weapon.(if GW even made a weapon for it). So I would see no big deal changing the stem around unless when GW stated the base the stem and base are one and the same to them.

 

Also makes sense.

 

Now I kind of want to model a sort of "Tactical Insertion" Where the retro jets(hover jets?) are actively firing and having kneeling tacs shooting  out the side and front ramps hovering just above the ground.

[CovertToaster]

The only problem with not using the stem for a flyer is that you would no longer be able to place the flyer over the top of another unit as the unit can no longer fit underneath the flyer or stay 1" away from the hull (I think). This wouldn't be a huge problem for me as I would probably try to avoid doing that anyway but it also is interesting to note that ground based troops fire at the flyer along the same angle. Thus they would experience the same shortened range you speak of but it would now be a boon to the player controlling the flyer rather than a hinderence and partially invalidates your assertion of a disadvantage.

 

The comparison of a crone and a deamon prince is inaccurate as I believe a crone is a dedicated flying unit whereas a DP CAN fly or engage in cc on the ground. If you had compared a DP to a flyrant I would have considered that as some sort of evidence but I don't think it really matters because if everybody modelled DP's on flying bases then you would get complaints about how silly it is when the DP voluntarily lands and engages units in cc.

[Nusquam]

The only problem with not using the stem for a flyer is that you would no longer be able to place the flyer over the top of another unit as the unit can no longer fit underneath the flyer or stay 1" away from the hull (I think). This wouldn't be a huge problem for me as I would probably try to avoid doing that anyway but it also is interesting to note that ground based troops fire at the flyer along the same angle. Thus they would experience the same shortened range you speak of but it would now be a boon to the player controlling the flyer rather than a hinderence and partially invalidates your assertion of a disadvantage.

 

The comparison of a crone and a deamon prince is inaccurate as I believe a crone is a dedicated flying unit whereas a DP CAN fly or engage in cc on the ground. If you had compared a DP to a flyrant I would have considered that as some sort of evidence but I don't think it really matters because if everybody modelled DP's on flying bases then you would get complaints about how silly it is when the DP voluntarily lands and engages units in cc.

 

The Crone can be grounded, glide and so on. It functions exactly like a DP in terms of movement and assault etc. The Tyrant can be modeled with the normal feet and wings as well.

 

I think that there are two outlooks, that I can think of, to the flyer stem situation.

1. The whole Flyer/FMC modeling rules needed to be more in depth or allow for changing of hieght etc
2. The rules aren't in-depth because it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of the universe as 40k is so wonky as it is.

[Gentlemanloser]

We should note, that 'modelling for an advantage' (or disadvantage here) is no longer a rule in the 6th edition rulebook.

 

You're disallowed to model your own cover, but that's it.

[Nusquam]

We should note, that 'modelling for an advantage' (or disadvantage here) is no longer a rule in the 6th edition rulebook.

 

You're disallowed to model your own cover, but that's it.

 

Interesting, even in the warriors code there isn't anything specific enough to be attributed to this...

[Gentlemanloser]

Might be lumped in under conversions.

 

While you can model your Riptide laying down (for easier Cover saves), that's not how the model is 'supposed' to be built, therefore it's a conversion.

[Nusquam]

Might be lumped in under conversions.

 

While you can model your Riptide laying down (for easier Cover saves), that's not how the model is 'supposed' to be built, therefore it's a conversion.

 

Just read through the most recent version. They're talking about centurions now haha. I would say you can win with just the landing gear point that was made earlier.

[Quixus]

Well the Storm Talon has the option to have the rear landing gear extended as if landed/landing so you could theoretically do that and jsut glue it to the base since it is a provided option.

You can do the same thing with the Storm Raven.

[Dam13n]

1 - "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with... ...you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar size as guidance."  BRB page 3, Models and Base Sizes

 

2 - "Flyers have flying bases that suspend them above the battlefield."  BRB page 80, Flyers and Measuring

 

- - - - -

 

This suggests that the flying rules are written with the flyer mounted on it's flying stand base in mind.  Therefore, flyer models should be mounted on said base, including the stand.

 

#1 tells us that a GW flyer should be mounted on the base the model comes with, when looking to change the base, you have to look at other flyer models to determine which other base sizes are OK.  All GW flyers now come with the flying stand base, so that's the only truly legal base.  Now as the wording is pretty loose, you could agree with your opponent beforehand if your method of mounting the model is OK, but if they say no...

 

#2 tells us that the model is suspended above the battlefield on it's base, so no gluing the model in a landed position on the base, you must use the stand.

 

There is nothing stopping you cutting the stand down in order to adjust the angle of the flyer, but just like a Walker is mounted on a 60mm base, your flyer should be mounted on a flying stand base.  Doing this would count as a conversion, however completely omitting the flying stand results in the model no longer being "suspended above the battlefield" which is required by the rule quoted in #2.

[Nusquam]

1 - "The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with... ...you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar size as guidance."  BRB page 3, Models and Base Sizes

 

2 - "Flyers have flying bases that suspend them above the battlefield."  BRB page 80, Flyers and Measuring

 

- - - - -

 

This suggests that the flying rules are written with the flyer mounted on it's flying stand base in mind.  Therefore, flyer models should be mounted on said base, including the stand.

 

#1 tells us that a GW flyer should be mounted on the base the model comes with, when looking to change the base, you have to look at other flyer models to determine which other base sizes are OK.  All GW flyers now come with the flying stand base, so that's the only truly legal base.  Now as the wording is pretty loose, you could agree with your opponent beforehand if your method of mounting the model is OK, but if they say no...

 

#2 tells us that the model is suspended above the battlefield on it's base, so no gluing the model in a landed position on the base, you must use the stand.

 

There is nothing stopping you cutting the stand down in order to adjust the angle of the flyer, but just like a Walker is mounted on a 60mm base, your flyer should be mounted on a flying stand base.  Doing this would count as a conversion, however completely omitting the flying stand results in the model no longer being "suspended above the battlefield" which is required by the rule quoted in #2.

 

#1 is only referring to the black oval. You also cut out the part that the "Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, mall fairness, rebuvely few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance." So that is only applied if the model has no base.

 

So you can't model it landing/landed. Which I personally think is silly considering the landing gear and not falling out of the ship. But you can satisfy #2 but not having it touching the base and suspended. No hieght is mentioned.

 

I would say that so long as it is suspended above the black oval its fine. Otherwise unless we use the GW bases in  the box, I.E. no 3rd party bases, the units aren't legal.

 

FMCs can have cover by having their base in area terrain in glide or swoop mode. Daemon Princes can fly even though their feet never leave the ground.

 

Another thing is that you could cut the bottom of, say, a stormraven so the stem goes further into the model. So if there was more indication you had to use the stem, that's one way to satisfy it. Or to cut the stem up.

 

In all honesty the only models that I would want to mount lower would be transports like Stormravens(and mines about to become a Fire Raptor) and FMCs like the Crone, who is severely outclassed modeling-game mechanics wise by a Daemon Prince. Dedicated gunships, like the Fire Raptor, need the hieght to shoot things otherwise they would be baaaad.

[Rapture747]

These arguments crop up from time to time. The traditional counter argument is that you could apply all of your arguments to infantry resulting in a 1/4" tall army of unassembled gravel-looking models with all of the relevent pieces glued flat against the base. Or, better yet, how about a flat land raider?

 

As with anything in 40k, you need permission. Each kit comes with instructions that tell you how the models in that kit are to be assembled. If you modify how the model is built -in any way- then you are playing with a conversion.

 

Most conversions have no impact on how the game is played, making them unobjectionable. Things like decreasing the height of a model outside of normal manipulation of aspects like joints or variable contact points are objectionable because they result in an obvious advantage not contemplated in that model's point cost.

 

Your frustration with FMCs is understandable, as they get the best of both worlds, but it doesn't mean that you get to create advantages for other models. Also, modifying a flyer so that it sits lower on its stand is a clear example of MfA.

[greggles]

In our play group, we just measure the default height of a flyer on it's base, and use that for the measurements for gun firing.  For example.  My flyer has a resin base, with an 8 inch high acrylic brace.  (much sturdier then the gw setup).  It actually reduces my range by an inch or so, so we just adjust the measurements to take this into account.

 

Example.  I'm shooting at a group of necron warriors 13 inches away.  Because my flyer is 1 inch higher then GW's base, we just call it 12 inches.  Vice versa, those same warriors are now in rapid fire range when they weren't before.  This resolves the whole modeling issue as you just use the default base dimensions to adjust.

 

http://www.3dluvr.com/crossbow/templars/raven1.jpg

[Nusquam]

I just hate the idea of a Space Marine pilot, who has had hundreds of years of training and fighting will always present himself as a target to get shot down when his job is to transport fellow marines(in case of the stormraven).

 

There are lines to MfA, like doubling the length of weapon barrels or not assembling at all, but I feel that modeling a transport flyer lower is modeling for logic, you trade off lines of fire(which for anything besides a transport, like a gunship, is a bad idea) for survivability. This isn't chess where everything is uniform. Pilots go up and down, go evasive(which gives them jink so that's a plus) land/hover low to let troops out while all staying at the same level hieght? Seems ridiculous to me. Fortunately the only transport flyer I will now ever  have is a Thunderhawk, which cares not for cover and Fire Raptors that will hang out nestled in some void shields.

 

Edit: Oh snap I forgot the Assault Ram exists... ugghhh I wants one for Carcharodons...

[Ushtarador]

I think whether it's viewed as MfA mostly depends on the implementation ;) A hovering stormraven with firing retro jets and marines kneeling on the open ramp, with the interior painted will never be critizised by sensible people. The worst that can happen is that they will insist you play it as if it were on top of the stand, but since you also get a severe disadvantage when modelling it grounded (granting more cover saves, diminishing LoS), I don't think it will be an issue.

[Jostal]

What i do see is a great argument for GW to make you buy more models. "You want your Demon prince swooping? He should be modeled like similar units, thus flying up high, on a flying base." So, now you need two demon prince models, one for Swooping mode and one for CC Mode. BUY MORE MODELS! ;p

 

(Though this argument is pretty great for requiring a Demon Prince to be put on a flying base while swooping to eliminate Advantages gained from LoS issues that other flyers dont get.)

[Leonaides]

So I looked up NOE flying and found this:

 

 Fast jets are more constrained and at a typical low-flying speed of 450 knots (800 km/h), 200 feet (60 m) is not unusual and 50 feet (15 m) is possible in relatively flat terrain.

 60 feet would equal about 9 inches or so (roughly - be nice). So how high is a fast-flying Stormraven flying while on its stem - bearing in mind that you arent (or at least I assume so)

on flat terrain so they will be flying a bit higher than 3-4 inches!

[greggles]

So, now you need two demon prince models, one for Swooping mode and one for CC Mode. BUY MORE MODELS! ;p

 

I hold my flyers onto the acrylic bases with a heavy 1/4 x 1/8 magnet.  It's incredibly strong.  As such, you could easily setup another shorter base (if you wanted to be super epic) and just have that for hover/flight mode, and swap via magnet.  No need for two models, just two bases and 1 extra magnet.  (If you were so inclined).  

 

The magnets are actually strong enough, that you can throw them in the hull of some of the flyers, and they'll snap to the base, through the hull.

 

http://www.3dluvr.com/crossbow/warhammer/wee.jpg

Lets you pose them in awesome ways!