WFB Modeling Question

[Sammy]

This is a silly, sorry in advance for the newbie question:

 

Is height an issue in WFB like in 40k, or can I customize my bases as high as I want from a hobby perspective for WFB?

 

Thanks!

[AgentP]

Fantasy uses true line of sight, like 40k.  But in general, making something taller is a disadvantage, not an advantage.  At something like the OFCC you'll see some very built up bases.

[mojoslayer]

It is true that height gives you a disadvantage, but I don't care, I build things the way I want, to me hobby trumps.  

[AgentP]

Totally agree.  Hobby trumps

[savion47]

I love to see awesome scenic bases. I would say that as long as you are not overly abusing it (Like making your archers considerably taller) than it is ok.

[MexicanNinja]

Fantasy uses true line of sight, like 40k.  But in general, making something taller is a disadvantage, not an advantage.  At something like the OFCC you'll see some very built up bases.

Hows it a disadvantage?  You don't use the 50% rule for cover and cannons need to see the ground in front of the base not the model.

[MexicanNinja]

It is true that height gives you a disadvantage, but I don't care, I build things the way I want, to me hobby trumps.  

I don't think it gives you a disadvantage.  If you're a large target, you will most likely very rarely not be able to be seen by someone who wants to shoot at you.  Your base still determins if the model is hit by a cannon and template weapons.  I don't think it's a disadvantage.  The flip side is that if you use this for war machines you could end up giving them an advantage for shooting over, and not through, units.

[mojoslayer]

I have single character models on tall bases, and gyrocopters.  It lost me a game once because my opponent argued that he could see the whole thing and therefore was not at a minus to hit it, I could not make an sound argument against it, so he did, and killed it, and I lost because of it.   But even with that, I won't change the way I base anything.  

[MexicanNinja]

I'll have to look at the rules but I don't think that's how it works.  If I remember correctly it just states that if you're behind the unit.  I do know it states that large targets cannot gain cover bonuses from units/models who aren't large targets.

[Drak]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with line of sight and how much of the model is obstructed from the shooting models view, partial = soft, 50% obscured = hard. so in this example if the shooting model can see your entire model because you modeled it really talk for whatever reason then I would agree, no cover.

[Sammy]

So what I'm hearing is that I shouldn't tier my infantry in steps so each row is a different height when ranked up.

[Drak]

i say do what you want to, just know some people may have issues with how it affects line of sight. both for shooting ( if these are archers) and for cover.

[Drak]

looking cool beats out other things in my book.

[MexicanNinja]

@Drak- yes, the unit just has to be obsurred and a lone model needs to be more than half obscurred.

 

@Sammy- I would say that if you are going for the cool looking base, which isn't a bad thing, it could get mixed results depending on who you're playing.  I for one love to see scenic bases.

 

Large targers can claim cover from units but not obstacles.

[Brick Bungalow]

It's rarely been an issue in my games. Sometimes when players make larger monsters larger still they end up taking more cannon shots. But beyond that it's virtually inconsequential. The way that characters interact with troops and terrain along with the dominance of the melee phase makes most of the 40k-type concerns irrelevant. 

[MexicanNinja]

The difference with fantasy and 40k is that cannons need to hit the base, not model. That's the easy issue. The "modeling for an advantage" comes into play when you use raised bases for a unit and then stick them in front of things you want a cover save for. However, if everything is modeled on a raised base, it shouldn't be an issue. I don't foresee this an issue for OFCC thoug. Modeling is expected.

[Sammy]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I'll play around with it, at most I'm thinking of tiering the rows in ~2-3cm increments. I'm thinking it will add some visual interest but not cause too much fuss.

[MexicanNinja]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I'll play around with it, at most I'm thinking of tiering the rows in ~2-3cm increments. I'm thinking it will add some visual interest but not cause too much fuss.

Go for it.  I want to see the outcome and how this effect looks on a ranked up unit.

[Sammy]

Another newbie question - I have an old metal carnosaur and it's on a smaller base than the new plastic kit. So...do I use the new base dimensions with the old model, or use the old model base dimensions? Is there a tactical advantage to being able to use a smaller base on the monster? From a modeling standpoint, I'm more excited about using the largest base footprint possible.

[rudra34]

You are allowed to use the base that the model came with.  The old Carni is on a 50x50, the knew is on a 50x100.   Either are legal to use if they came with the model when you bought it.   If you want to bump up to the 50x100 then no one will mind.

 

There is a slight advantage to being on a smaller base as you have smaller flanks and fewer models can attack you back.

[Sammy]

That makes sense with the arc sizes, thanks! I think I'll bump it up to the 50x100, the carnosaurs and stegadons are really the centerpieces of my army, so I want to really put some interesting things on there.