insaniak wrote:

From wrote:
This thread has brought something to my mind.

If there are some models that work well with the ADL, standing IG heavy weapon teams for instance, is there anything in the rules preventing you from using nothing but that model? Would it be MFA to model ALL of your heavy weapon teams identical to the official GW sculpt that can see over the ADL?

This was the point I made earlier.

Using models in different poses isn't in itself an issue. Where people take exception to it is where you make specific modelling choices solely for the purposes of giving yourself an in-game advantage that you wouldn't have using the regular models.

Nobody cares if you model some of your Gretchen in funky poses because it looks cool. People will care if you model your Gretchen all standing on rocks for the sole purpose of letting them see over things that they otherwise couldn't.

Modeling for advantage implies to me that you're altering a model to be standing on those rocks for strictly advantageous purposes. If you're using an official model nothing altered about it (The regular model). What's the problem?

 Timmy149 wrote:

That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

People simply don't care and just want an enjoyable game that makes sense. I'd like to use the word "most" in front of that sentence, but don't care to start another argument.

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

I don't treat them differently.

"What about this model?!!" "And? It can't see either." "... Oh."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

Some stock HWT's can see over the stock ADL, and some stock HWT's can not.

No stock grots can see over the stock ADL.

Modeling extra vision slits, just so a model that has no way of normally seeing over the top of the ADL can see through it, when it would normally have no Line of Sight at all Is the very definition of MFA.

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

Well the ADL slits are higher than the low sections of the walls.

All of the grots I have/have seen are shorter than the low sides of the walls. They could possibly see over the wall to the 3rd or 4th story of a ruin, or a Flyer that is close enough to them, but all of the grots I have/have seen can not see something on the same level as themselves when the grots are within 1 inch of the ALD.

Not 100% sure because I have not seen every 40K grot model in existence, but for most of the grots this is true. (Grots are tiny but you know that).

They arent, or shouldnt be treated any differently. Certianly any tournament I've been in Guard players dont try to treat it differently

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently?

They're not. Or at least shouldn't be. If a model can't see over it, then they can't see over it. It makes no difference what army they come from.

From wrote:

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

There probably are some. IIRC, these fellows were lather tall:

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

Because of what I have been telling people ALL THE TIME in this thread!
It's not allowed but nobody gives a gak.
Just like with these damn Grots: It's MFA but most people couldn't care less.

And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Kangodo wrote:
And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Probably not true. The reason it's on page 11 is because people like me noted that it is MFA, and have been mocked for saying so.
Since I would also prefer not to play against it, the same thing would likely happen.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Probably not true. The reason it's on page 11 is because people like me noted that it is MFA, and have been mocked for saying so.
Since I would also prefer not to play against it, the same thing would likely happen.

Yes, I dont quite understand how stating something factual (I am modelling to gain X advantage, and for no other reason) causes so much issue.

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Unfortunately my mind keeps resetting to Cties of Death, where a unit in contact with a wall may shoot over the wall regardless of LoS.

Cheers

Andrew

Wow, this is a little bit ridiculous.

OP asks question
People give opinions
OP argues their opinion, seeks others
Others agree with OP, OP dismisses everyone who doesn't agree
People post for the first time just to vilify those who posted their opinion to the question asked.

Wow.

As for my opinion?
Is it Modelling For Advantage? Yes. the entire original post says 'I want to create my OWN defence line so that my grots can shoot over it, because the standard model does not allow so'. That's the exact definition. You are changing a model, so that the rules work in a different way to the standard model.

That being said, should it be allowed in a competitive tournament? No, as it is MFA
Should it be used in games ever? Of course it should! In any friendly game which the opponent agrees, fine!
If you played against me at a gaming club, I'd be fine with it.
If I came against you in a tournament, well, it might be a little different

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

JBrehaut wrote:

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

Personal fun at the expense of my opponent is unreasonable. That is what makes you a poor sport when resorting to gamesmanship.

MFA is gamesmanship. Rule of Cool and MFA are mutually exclusive. I don't need to only play against people willing to let me abuse them in order to 'have the funz' when playing. I respect my opponents by not attempting to exploit gaps in the rules or abusive modeling for unintended advantages.

Apparently 'fun' means 'not complaining when someone cheats or plays loose and fast with the rules'. Gravel genestealers and crouching wraithlords are 'fun'. I feel like you can play a fair game with tight rules and appropriate models and it still be fun and friendly. Attempting to get advantages via abusive modeling doesn't sound friendly to opponents to me.

nkelsch wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

Personal fun at the expense of my opponent is unreasonable. That is what makes you a poor sport when resorting to gamesmanship.

MFA is gamesmanship. Rule of Cool and MFA are mutually exclusive. I don't need to only play against people willing to let me abuse them in order to 'have the funz' when playing. I respect my opponents by not attempting to exploit gaps in the rules or abusive modeling for unintended advantages.

Apparently 'fun' means 'not complaining when someone cheats or plays loose and fast with the rules'. Gravel genestealers and crouching wraithlords are 'fun'. I feel like you can play a fair game with tight rules and appropriate models and it still be fun and friendly. Attempting to get advantages via abusive modeling doesn't sound friendly to opponents to me.

By all means I can agree, I guess the main point I was trying to give is, if an opponent agrees to it, then sure, use it. If they do not, then they are the kind of opponent he clearly doesn't wish to play, and be glad you came to that conclusion before playing a game with someone and not enjoying it because they have a different stance.
Your way of having fun and enjoying the game is correct, as is his. They're just not compatible. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle.

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

There probably are some. IIRC, these fellows were lather tall:

And like the Space Hulk Genestealers, are not actually Warhammer 40000 models...

 insaniak wrote:

And like the Space Hulk Genestealers, are not actually Warhammer 40000 models...

But are Citadel models, and that's what the rules refer to. Also, there probably are some actual 40K gretchin that can see over the wall (no, I'm not going to check.)

Too much bickering to read 11 pages, here is my suggestion to the OP that maybe has already been made.

Make your gretchin defense line and ask your opponent in friendly games if you can use it for gretchin only. Just explain that the regular one is too tall for gretchin but the one you made is too short for your Ork boys.

This way you are not modelling for advantage but using experimental rules in a casual game.

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Individual models I'd play like they're modeled (and therefore couldnt see over the wall). Units of models I'd insist were played as if standing.
It's not a double standard. It's a sliding scale based on level of offense.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Individual models I'd play like they're modeled (and therefore couldnt see over the wall). Units of models I'd insist were played as if standing.
It's not a double standard. It's a sliding scale based on level of offense.

again, I totally think shortened aegis is modelling for advantage/disadvantage (my grots like being out of LOS with their lobbas, lots of my older minis can see over, but this is 15+ yrs old stuff at least)

but as far as what I actually said about conversions rigel2d

easysauce wrote: (biker warbosses, wasdakka, inquisitor valeria, ect)

and every codex with units in it with wargear options only available via conversions (ie a box of GK's comes with one hammer, but OBS we can convert more GKS to have hammers legally, several weapons dont have models with those weapons, acolytes in power armour dont exist, and so on)

is permission to convert, or use stand ins (some lawyer types will say that biker ork warbosses are "illegal" as is using wasdakka or valeria, after all, you cannot play the rules for those units without conversions/stand ins. these lawyer types would be wrong OFC)

which of those units are illegal in your mind then rigel2d or not always acceptable?

Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Hang on, this is like the argument of Rhino's and their successor vehicles. The way the GW razorback mount fits can go two ways-Is it not modelling for advantage if you glue the hole-area to the front? Even when is says to put it on at the back? Same with the Baneblade sponsons and LR sponsons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also yes, in the grots box there are grots that CAN see over an ADL (I did greenstuff their feet up about 5 mm, but that's beside the point. The one standing up with no arms can see over the low bits (I Think)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Dude, you have no idea... Take a read through some of the other threads...

This thread has rapidly devolved into platitudes being thrown at each other. There is literally no more productive input being introduced and the OP has had enough input already to determine his course of action. If people really want to discuss "MFA" they should start a separate thread.

Beast wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Dude, you have no idea... Take a read through some of the other threads...

Oh, believe me, I know. But to go on for this many pages on the minutia of the construction of a piece of low cover designed for infantry models to be able to shoot over but still take cover behind?

Or, True Line of Sight meaning that five Space marines can fire over an ADL, but the sixth guy in line, who is modeled on kneeling legs, somehow cannot, because he's permanently kneeling.

Or, about the line of sight issues of firing over said ADL, versus the line of sight issues incurred when firing out of a firing slit in said ADL? (The (sane) answer being "none".)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

I could point out that discussion of the minutae of the rules is one of the things that people do for fun...

Or that discussing how the rules are written in now way dictates how someone plays the game...

Or that this isn't actually likely to be a big issue at the table, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Some people seem to want to make it an issue, because for some reason it's ridiculous to point out that modelling for advantage is modelling for advantage, apparently...

if your playing for fun, and your opposite doesn't mind. fill your boots.

Comps - no.

Kangodo wrote:

And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

I worded it badly. I give zero feths about the definition of MFA and all that crap. Its also not a straightforward "Would you allow it", though that is part of the question.

It is, specifically for all you guys who are dictionary-defining this gak (cut that out), the following:

"is this a permittable degree of altering a model for advantage" in three seperate contexts, based on your personal opinion or experience. For the purposes of this question, note that we are not operating under the following definition of MFA: "any change, no matter how small, instantly invalidates a model for competitive play"

The three contexts are;

-Friendly/casual/campaign games
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments

Now seriously, thats the question, and I'm altering the original post and the thread title to include what I was actually asking. Please answer that question and that question only, and don't spam up this thread with stuff that is now officially "off topic"

For Friendly/casual/campaign games: I would only allow an altered ADL if my opponent afforded me the same leeway with my ADL, so I can get a cover save, and not block Line of sight from my predators guns. but if I have to use the stock model then the same is true of my opponent.

For GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments: Official models only, if conversions are present I would expect to play them as the standard GW model.

For Non GW / more casual Tournaments: Same as for GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments

For friendly play, you would be unlikely to have significant issues.

For tournament play, it's really going to depend on the TO, and the specific tournie crowd. For the sort of events I normally play in, the majority of players wouldn't care.

-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

Theres a guy at my club who uses old 40k Trukks - they're like, a third the size of real ones. I could understand if people take issue with a vehicle like that

easysauce wrote:

easysauce wrote: (biker warbosses, wasdakka, inquisitor valeria, ect)

and every codex with units in it with wargear options only available via conversions (ie a box of GK's comes with one hammer, but OBS we can convert more GKS to have hammers legally, several weapons dont have models with those weapons, acolytes in power armour dont exist, and so on)

is permission to convert, or use stand ins (some lawyer types will say that biker ork warbosses are "illegal" as is using wasdakka or valeria, after all, you cannot play the rules for those units without conversions/stand ins. these lawyer types would be wrong OFC)

which of those units are illegal in your mind then rigel2d or not always acceptable?

It depends on how they're modeled. Which is what I've said. So since you want an absolute answer to misquote, potentially all of them.

I'm separating the second option as I think the answers are different.

For casual play: totally acceptable

For GW: I think the intent is for you to so this

For anal tournament: depends on the tournament and prior approval but very unlikely. Note that these tournaments commonly publish their own FAQs and ruling prior to play.

For casual tournament: get prior approval as this depends on the TO. If I was the TO I'd allow it as the idea of grots hiding behind something while shooting is totally inline with the stories.

 Mythra wrote:

Both these walls were allowed in tournaments and Nids can't technically even use a Aegis Line so it looks like the answer will vary to whichever side your TO leans. I bet rule of cool goes a Loonnnggggggg way.

http://www.fritz40k.com/2012/10/xeno-aegis-defense-line-options.html

Nothing would stop you from having a genestealer army of all those short stealers from space hulk. I see no rule about MFA in the rule book. White Dwarf features plenty of custom bastions and defense lines and White Dwarf is official 40k.

EDIT add : Read the bottom post of that above cited defense line pic blog --- interesting.


Anyway with my Throne of skulls tournament next week I broached the subject on the Warhammer World Facebook page and got this definitive response [you heard it here first]

"Hey Dave- I have spoken to Simon and Jervis from Games Development (note - this isn't something we normally do, but given the pressing time limit, I went and did it!) and the answer is this - "Only emplaced weapons (such as those found on a Bastion or Fortress of Redemption) have the option to be fired either manually or automatically. Weapons attached to an Aegis defence line are gun emplacements, which cannot be fired automatically. The Tyranids FAQ document states that Tyranids cannot fire weapons manually, therefore as much as they are free to use Aegis defence lines, they will not benefit from any attached gun emplacements. We are, however, aware that this is a problem and will be reviewing the situation when we begin writing the next batch of FAQs in a few weeks."

So there may be an upcoming reprieve for the quad gun."

I thought so, then they brought out the latest FAQ and it wasn't reprieved. However, an upcoming Warhammer World tournament allows Xenos forces to take Genestealer cultists and they get to fire autoguns and heavy stubbers, so if they bring these guys back in the recently rumored 'allies supplement' I think that's where we'll get our Quad gun shooters, although I can't imagine them sticking their hands in the back of my Quad gun

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

40K You Make Da Call
Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

The above is a direct quote from the link to this sub-forum that you clicked. You were warned before even coming here and yet you complain?

Get out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
For Friendly/casual/campaign games: I would only allow an altered ADL if my opponent afforded me the same leeway with my ADL, so I can get a cover save, and not block Line of sight from my predators guns. but if I have to use the stock model then the same is true of my opponent.

For GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments: Official models only, if conversions are present I would expect to play them as the standard GW model.

For Non GW / more casual Tournaments: Same as for GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments

So would you concede that if Dakkamite here presented you with Official models only that were Gretchen standing tall enough to see through the slits in the normal ADL that his conversion would no longer matter? If you played both as the "standard GW model." his models could still see making the visual changes irrelevant?

Except standard Gretchen are not tall enough to see over the low part of the wall to things on the same level.

As you can see by these ADL still on the sprue, the low wall sections are shorter than the vision slits. Pic spoilerd it is quite large.

40K You Make Da Call
Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

The above is a direct quote from the link to this sub-forum that you clicked. You were warned before even coming here and yet you complain?

Get out.

That last part's pretty rude, so sorry, no. Don't come at me unless you are going to include everyone else that's said something similar in this thread. It wasn;t even complaining, but a shaking of the head and going "Really guys?".

And there's a difference between a heated discussion that remains constructive, and one that's just repeating the same things over and over.

@From: this discussion effectively changed the moment dakkamite updated the post earlier today. Also, I agree with AegisGrimm, that your comment was extremely rude. It certainly added nothing here.

That said, I'm not entirely sure there are grots that can see over a standard ADL. I haven't historically taken DR's side on anything; however, I'm sure he would agree that if a grot existed that was actually tall enough to see over the center part of the barrier and was modeled as provided from GW then it would get to fire due to de facto LOS to the target unit. Regardless, that's not relevant to the discussion (before or after the slight topic change by the OP).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except standard Gretchen are not tall enough to see over the low part of the wall to things on the same level.

What is 'standard gretchin'? GW has made gretchin for decades, I'm sure some of them can see over it; those Space Crusade gretchin probably would. (How tall is the lower portion of the wall anyway?)

The lower section of the wall is about 1" or so.

From wrote:

I too would like to know what a standard gretchin is.I would like to know If the ancient gretchin I'm in possession of (who's foreheads, eyes, and pointy little hats stand neatly above my ADL) are not standard.

Yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Many older gretchin were larger than the current ones, they got smaller after Gorkamorka (and they started to call them grots.)

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

I too would like to know what a standard gretchin is.I would like to know If the ancient gretchin I'm in possession of (who's foreheads, eyes, and pointy little hats stand neatly above my ADL) are not standard.

Yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Many older gretchin were larger than the current ones, they got smaller after Gorkamorka (and they started to call them grots.)

ADL is 1" tall at the short section.

No Gorka Grots or 5th edition plastic grots are 1" tall at eye level when mounted on a base. No 40k grot model made after 1998 is tall enough to see over an ADL.

I have the 2nd edition plastic grots. *MINE* are not tall enough to see over the ADL. They are close, but no cigar unless you mounted them on top of a layer of thick gravel. they are about 2/16ths of an inch too short. They are almost the exact same size as one of the plastic grots on the new kit which has the same pose and everything. They are not larger except the gun and pointy spike.

Here is a good ebay auction which shows:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Painted-WH-40K-Plastic-Space-Ork-and-2-Gretchen-Minis-/290358109601?pt=Games_US&hash=item439ab125a1

The spike may be seen, but the entire grot, including base is under 1" and can't see over an ADL.

I don't see any evidence that GW intended all 28mm infantry models the inherent right to see over an ADL unobstructed for 1-way cover. I think it is ok for leeway for models who have counterparts who COULD see over like a few scattered Kneeling tau or Iguard in a unit with standing models who clearly can see... the old previous edition 'any model can be any model' concept. That is fine for casual games.

There is simply no justification for saying 20 years of models which can never see over in any situation should be allowed to see over. If everyone's grots can't see over, then I don't see why I would deserve an advantage no one else can get. Consistency is fairness, and I don't want to abuse opponents.

From wrote:
What is 'standard gretchin'?

It is a Grot or gretchin kit produced by GW and not modified in any way. (Aka no scenic bases, no converted Ork torso's made into grots etc...)

UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

 Nem wrote:


-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

So older players like myself who've been collecting since late 3rd early 4th (Or way, way, way earlier in some of your cases!) should just toss our models out the window because GW released new ones? Really? I mean, that's pretty much the ONLY next logical step to that thought process. If someone went through the time and effort to acquire all older models then so be it. My entire SM and Tau forces are from the pewter era. Should I toss out my Broadside kits and spend 360 dollars on replacement broadsides because they made them bulkier? I would walk away at that point and be 100% in the right for doing so. Not every player who's ever been playing sits on the internet and follows what's legal in terms of basing. When the base size goes up if you've got a problem with their base size then add dimensions to it when you charge - holy crap - how hard was that? It's not like it's printed in the rulebook what models utilize what base sizes, and until it does so you should really approach this situation with an open mind.

MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

No need for rudeness, watch your tone and language please. Thank you.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Thats good! When in doubt, contact the TO.

Anbutou wrote:

 Nem wrote:


-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

So older players like myself who've been collecting since late 3rd early 4th (Or way, way, way earlier in some of your cases!) should just toss our models out the window because GW released new ones? Really? I mean, that's pretty much the ONLY next logical step to that thought process. If someone went through the time and effort to acquire all older models then so be it. My entire SM and Tau forces are from the pewter era. Should I toss out my Broadside kits and spend 360 dollars on replacement broadsides because they made them bulkier? I would walk away at that point and be 100% in the right for doing so. Not every player who's ever been playing sits on the internet and follows what's legal in terms of basing. When the base size goes up if you've got a problem with their base size then add dimensions to it when you charge - holy crap - how hard was that? It's not like it's printed in the rulebook what models utilize what base sizes, and until it does so you should really approach this situation with an open mind.

MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

I wasn't implying I don't want to play against older models, I have plenty of older models myself. I was saying I find it wierd how in this thread there was opposition to older models based on advantages they might bring, though in the *Many* 'Base size' YMDC's Older bases have never faced opposition, and I am of the opinion often the base sizes will cause more varience than models. That is just my opinion though.

*****

Grats OP on your win though. Maybe post your creation in the P&M section once complete? Would be a nice followup

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Good to hear and good luck in your games.

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

Did you explicitly ask in regards to changing the dimensions to allow models to change LOS or did you bury the lead by asking if custom ADLs are allowed and not clarifying the potential dispute or your motivation?

Lots of people ask TOs loaded questions to get a specific result only to be overturned the day of the event when the motive is revealed.

The question to the TO should not have been "can I use a custom model to represent an orky ADL?" but "Can I modify the dimensions of the ADL to whatever I want to change how models interact with it in regards for LOS purposes?"

I suspect most TOs would say "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second question.

nkelsch wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

Did you explicitly ask in regards to changing the dimensions to allow models to change LOS or did you bury the lead by asking if custom ADLs are allowed and not clarifying the potential dispute or your motivation?

Lots of people ask TOs loaded questions to get a specific result only to be overturned the day of the event when the motive is revealed.

The question to the TO should not have been "can I use a custom model to represent an orky ADL?" but "Can I modify the dimensions of the ADL to whatever I want to change how models interact with it in regards for LOS purposes?"

I suspect most TOs would say "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second question.

He said the TO wanted more than him just drilling holes, so it sounds like he explained the whole situation.
You shouldn't ask it either of those ways, the second phrasing is angling for a certain answer just as much as the first way. Explain the situation in full.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

glad to hear it,

more fun to have an orky one, and IMO its actually a disadvantage to not be able to put grots out of LOS behind the aegis, but thats because I use the barrage lobbas.

I really like custom terrain. Can you post pics of your ADL in relation to grots?

nkelsch wrote:

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

You seem to be arguing the first point I made against the second. They're two completely different points. I'm not saying grots got shorter, or that the ADL existed pre 6th. I was talking about people trying to imply that utilizing older models is MFA, and then I was talking about the actual subject of the thread. Y'know... the reason we're here? >.>

Anbutou wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

You seem to be arguing the first point I made against the second. They're two completely different points. I'm not saying grots got shorter, or that the ADL existed pre 6th. I was talking about people trying to imply that utilizing older models is MFA, and then I was talking about the actual subject of the thread. Y'know... the reason we're here? >.>

The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

 Timmy149 wrote:
The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

That really depends on whether or not you find older models cool...

 insaniak wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

That really depends on whether or not you find older models cool...

By rule of cool I refer to having a legit 40k army. Not one designed to be one that gets around rules and does some MFA stuff.

Then you're talking about a different Rule of Cool to everyone else, since the common usage for that term is that otherwise potentially problematic conversions are made more acceptable the more cool they are.

What I mean is that collecting an entire army of the same, 2nd edition model does go against the rule of cool. (BTW I do like 3rd ed marines better than the current ones.)

 Timmy149 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

That really depends on whether or not you find older models cool...

By rule of cool I refer to having a legit 40k army. Not one designed to be one that gets around rules and does some MFA stuff.

Not sure if attempting to troll.....

First you say having a whole army older models or even part of one is not MFA but then turn around and say that doing it can do some MFA stuff?

Insaniak pretty much has it there, it depends on what you want to have as your models. It's irrelevant to the rules if they are sourced from older editions.

(Really sorry if this has been raised already but...)

Lie the ADL 'flat' rather than 'upright'. Align it so that the stock unmodified ADL is deeper then it is tall. Ensure all segments are in base contact with one another.

Job Done.

Gretchins/Gants etc. should now be able to shoot/see/be shot at fine.

 Timmy149 wrote:
What I mean is that collecting an entire army of the same, 2nd edition model does go against the rule of cool. (BTW I do like 3rd ed marines better than the current ones.)

Wait, I'm confused here, are you saying that you think people are collecting like 200 copies of a 2nd edition SM and saying "counts as" to everything? That's kind of what I'm reading here, but it could just be getting lost in translation. My original point was simply that anger over utilization of models from older generations (now obviously I'm not saying that 100% of models are perfectly fine, obviously there's extreme examples, most found within the Orks >.> ) is probably one of the worst sentiments I've ever read on any forum for this game. Ever. The entire point of the game is to enjoy playing your toy soldiers against other toy soldiers. If someone falls out of the hobby for a while and then comes back, why should they have have to re-invest in order to play? (Obviously, again aside from books and the like.) Counts as and such is something I never really care about, but I could see others having problems with. Personally I love the older models, it's a lot of fun playing against them, seeing how they made them before I started.

Also, I think you don't understand what the "rule of cool" is. If a player collects an entire 1st or 2nd edition army and then flavors it appropriately, then that's most absolutely rule of cool. Seeing things like the Luna Wolves on the table shows a true love for this hobby, and really shows off what is possible to be done within this game. Rule of cool is simply, you did something so awesome, that it would hurt them more to deny that thing it's time on the table than it would to let you field it.

Back on-topic, feel free to post your ideas/plans for your upcoming Orkish dakka line. >.>

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I have played against a guard army which was all of the same model with the, This guy has a Meltagun, this one a Powerfist and this one has two CCW. Remember that. I raged so badly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to clarify I mean an army of 200 identical guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I know the rule of cool, I just mean an army of clones ain't cool. I do like 1st/2nd ed models, they are waaaay cooler than some other GW stuff

 Timmy149 wrote:
What I mean is that collecting an entire army of the same, 2nd edition model does go against the rule of cool. (BTW I do like 3rd ed marines better than the current ones.)

Er... 3rd Ed marines are the current ones...

Razerous wrote:
(Really sorry if this has been raised already but...)

Lie the ADL 'flat' rather than 'upright'. Align it so that the stock unmodified ADL is deeper then it is tall. Ensure all segments are in base contact with one another.

Job Done.

Gretchins/Gants etc. should now be able to shoot/see/be shot at fine.

And I will lie my lootas flat so they can not be seen and then stand them up when I want to fire and lie them back down to be 100% obstructed again.

The rulebook doesn't say I can't!

Gravel Genestealers!

nkelsch wrote:

Razerous wrote:
(Really sorry if this has been raised already but...)

Lie the ADL 'flat' rather than 'upright'. Align it so that the stock unmodified ADL is deeper then it is tall. Ensure all segments are in base contact with one another.

Job Done.

Gretchins/Gants etc. should now be able to shoot/see/be shot at fine.

And I will lie my lootas flat so they can not be seen and then stand them up when I want to fire and lie them back down to be 100% obstructed again.

The rulebook doesn't say I can't!

Gravel Genestealers!

A vehicle has a front/side/back facing. A miniature has a model & a base. Finally, what I'm proposing isn't to 'position-for-advantage', as your suggesting with lootas. The same logic would mean your lootas are (wobbly) placed flat for the entire game.

An ADL is not a vehicle.

Exactly. Nor does it have a base.

Razerous wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Razerous wrote:
(Really sorry if this has been raised already but...)

Lie the ADL 'flat' rather than 'upright'. Align it so that the stock unmodified ADL is deeper then it is tall. Ensure all segments are in base contact with one another.

Job Done.

Gretchins/Gants etc. should now be able to shoot/see/be shot at fine.

And I will lie my lootas flat so they can not be seen and then stand them up when I want to fire and lie them back down to be 100% obstructed again.

The rulebook doesn't say I can't!

Gravel Genestealers!

A vehicle has a front/side/back facing. A miniature has a model & a base. Finally, what I'm proposing isn't to 'position-for-advantage', as your suggesting with lootas. The same logic would mean your lootas are (wobbly) placed flat for the entire game.

Show the rule which says I can't reposition my models however I want on whatever facing or side of the model I want?

If you can place the ADL however you wish because no rule says you can't, then I can literally do whatever I want because no rule says I can't.

It is implied vehicles models must be placed 'reasonably correct' on the table. ADL falls under that same implied functionality. If you say a model must be on its base, and a vehicle must be upright, a fortification can be upsidedown or on its side. Either all may be or none may be because "the rules don't say I can't!" allows literally everything to work.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I have played against a guard army which was all of the same model with the, This guy has a Meltagun, this one a Powerfist and this one has two CCW. Remember that. I raged so badly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to clarify I mean an army of 200 identical guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I know the rule of cool, I just mean an army of clones ain't cool. I do like 1st/2nd ed models, they are waaaay cooler than some other GW stuff

Well in that case you're obviously right, and you can simply cite WYSIWYG as to their attempts at telling you what each has. I usually don't care too much about "counts as" stuff, but there's limits, you can't just take an entire army of replica guys and say this one has this this one has that. If you've got a close approximation but it's not 100% perfect I'll always let it slide, but I don't think I'd play very many games against the guy that you played against, heh.

So from what I can work out, there are a few points

-Modifying a stock ADL would be MFA
-scratch-building an orky ADL is not MFA

 Timmy149 wrote:
So from what I can work out, there are a few points

-Modifying a stock ADL would be MFA
-scratch-building an orky ADL is not MFA

With one addendum.

-scratch-building an orky ADL is not MFA as long as it interacts with the game in the same manner as the stock ADL.

Yep, however the Rule of Cool usually supersedes MFA with all but the most rigorous TO staff. At a full on GT or something you can expect to never be allowed to do this, but your average TO seeing a well built Orky ADL will usually allow you to do things like shoot out of it for your grots.

from the point of view of most people here, giving a tactical squad sergeant a powerfist is MFA (as it doesnt come in the box, and clearly gives your model an advantage).

a bit of an exaggeration but for what its worth, just spotted this on warhammer worlds facebook page and wondered how the guys here would take playing against it (personally i think its a damned cool idea )

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=590827747603376&set=a.590826644270153.1073741846.212614545424700&type=1&theater

I'd be fine playing against it. It gives them hardly any cover at all...

mrspadge wrote:
from the point of view of most people here, giving a tactical squad sergeant a powerfist is MFA (as it doesnt come in the box, and clearly gives your model an advantage).

a bit of an exaggeration but for what its worth, just spotted this on warhammer worlds facebook page and wondered how the guys here would take playing against it (personally i think its a damned cool idea )

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=590827747603376&set=a.590826644270153.1073741846.212614545424700&type=1&theater

I'd play against it but - and here's the important thing that a lot of people are missing - as long as he doesn't claim an advantage from the different construction it doesn't matter. The OP in this thread was literally saying he wanted to do it to gain an advantage. Note the difference?