Because of the nightmare that this thread has become, I am re-wording my question. Please do not post off topic material in this thread.

Is altering an Aegis Defense Line so that Gretchin and similar small models (such as Guardsmen Heavy Weapons teams or Tyranid Termagaunts) are able to see through it and fire their weapons, and in turn become viable targets and lose their concealment, 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

Q: Would it be modeling for advantage to replace the standard model with a different one for the specific purpose of allowing better LOS for the models I want to put behind it?
A: Yes.

Yes it would be. You gain an advantage that you normally won't get if you deployed an unmodified ADL. If you would have had a disadvantage I wouldn't mind the fact you had shortened the ADL, but all your models still get a 4+ cover save.

The disadvantage would be that my Gretchin would now be vulnerable to being shot at instead of immune to it.

I'm not trying to model for advantage to be a dick, but rather because Gretchin not being able to fire their Big Guns because of their height just seems incredibly stupid game design to me (they can climb on the gun, or on each others shoulders, or stack a few skulls or rocks or something and look over, or do 99 other things to solve the problem)

Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

I'm just asking a question, no need to be a dick about it.

Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops

Now this guy is on to what I mean. The height of the Gretchin is messing with the purpose of the ADL. I think they should be perfectly targetable behind the line, its defensive benefits being covered completely by the 4+ cover and better go to ground.

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops.

That's not the intent at all. The intent of the model is to provide a specific piece of terrain. Whether or not your models can use it for an effective firing line depends on your choice of models. You don't get to make it smaller to help short models, just like you don't get to make it taller to give cover to a Reaver titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shamikebab wrote:
I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

Many models CAN see over it just fine. Maybe the lesson here is that grots are just too short to make good use of fortifications built to be used by boyz?

 Peregrine wrote:

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops.

That's not the intent at all. The intent of the model is to provide a specific piece of terrain. Whether or not your models can use it for an effective firing line depends on your choice of models. You don't get to make it smaller to help short models, just like you don't get to make it taller to give cover to a Reaver titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shamikebab wrote:
I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

Many models CAN see over it just fine. Maybe the lesson here is that grots are just too short to make good use of fortifications built to be used by boyz?

But surely if the Orks were building it for the grots then they'd make it smaller? I can't see there really being a universal standard size for ADL's throughout the galaxy, surely they'd be built for their intended purpose? Obviously you'd have to take into account gaming impact but I don't think it's unreasonable in this instance and I'd certainly allow it against me.

 shamikebab wrote:
But surely if the Orks were building it for the grots then they'd make it smaller?

Maybe they weren't building it for grots? Maybe all that's on the battlefield is boyz-sized fortifications that grots can't effectively use? Nothing in the rules even comes close to suggesting that you're entitled to a custom-designed aegis line for each type of unit in your army.

Depends how autist you wanna be about the rules vs common sense debate.

Perhaps I could just put a Gretchin model on top of each Big Gun. Then he can see just fine. Or put the ADL just in front of a piece of area terrain represented by a thick felt mat, which adds 5mm of height to the Grot so he can see over. Or maybe a Grot can move on top of another Grots base or something, or move on-top of the line itself.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Depends how autist you wanna be about the rules vs common sense debate.

Oh good, let's resort to insults.

Perhaps I could just put a Gretchin model on top of each Big Gun. Then he can see just fine. Or put the ADL just in front of a piece of area terrain represented by a thick felt mat, which adds 5mm of height to the Grot so he can see over. Or maybe a Grot can move on top of another Grots base or something, or move on-top of the line itself.

Or you could just accept that grots can't make effective use of an aegis line and put them in other terrain, just like I have to accept that my Reaver titan can't make effective use of an aegis line and put it in other terrain.

I'm speaking in general, if I was trying to insult you I'd have quoted you specifically.

Or you could just accept that grots can't make effective use of an aegis line and put them in other terrain

Or you could accept thats just opinion.

What about modelling the Grots on their tip-toes. Theres modelling for advantage, and then modelling thats 'within reason' - tip toes is an action they could feasibly physically attempt. They should be able to do it the same way say, a crouching Space Marine model can 'stand up' to fire.

Well, the rules have a lot of silly things in them, like LoS being drawn from the model's eyes as if the soldier being represented couldn't possibly lean around a corner or whatever. Given the terrain in question seems to be supposed to be a Games Workshop® Aegis Defense Line™ and not a generic wall of your choosing and similar dimensions, it seems like a clear-cut case of modeling for advantage to use something different instead.

However, I think you'd find many players would be fine with you using it and as long as they are then it's okay.

Also, putting a piece of terrain behind it so that your grot could see over the Aegis Defense Line by standing on the base is even more sketchy than your original question, IMO.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Or you could accept thats just opinion.

It's not opinion at all. There are no rules that permit what you want to do, and all you have is your sense of outrage that you can't make a unit as powerful as you want it to be.

What about modelling the Grots on their tip-toes. Theres modelling for advantage, and then modelling thats 'within reason' - tip toes is an action they could feasibly physically attempt. They should be able to do it the same way say, a crouching Space Marine model can 'stand up' to fire.

That's still modeling for advantage. Give it up.

 shamikebab wrote:

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

It wasn't built for them. Remenber, ADLs are battlefield debris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

I'm just asking a question, no need to be a dick about it.

I wasn't being a dick. I was merely questioning the logic of asking if an action that is considered wrong is wrong.

Dakkamite... when you post a topic or debate anything here on Dakkadakka you soon learn that there are a number of people whose replies, opinions or take on 40K in particular (and take on life in general) that you simply have to ignore in order to remain sane. Of course you should feel free to modify and scratch build a grot-barricade. For grots, by grots and to grot standard Not only does it make sense, it would also look awesome on the table. If anyone would have issues with that... well, that would say something about that player, wouldn't it? Always go for "the spirit of the game"!

Agusto

Agusto wrote:
Dakkamite... when you post a topic or debate anything here on Dakkadakka you soon learn that there are a number of people whose replies, opinions or take on 40K in particular (and take on life in general) that you simply have to ignore in order to remain sane. Of course you should feel free to modify and scratch build a grot-barricade. For grots, by grots and to grot standard Not only does it make sense, it would also look awesome on the table. If anyone would have issues with that... well, that would say something about that player, wouldn't it? Always go for "the spirit of the game"!

Agusto

Thank god for that, I was starting to worry that perhaps I had picked up the wrong hobby.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Thank god for that, I was starting to worry that perhaps I had picked up the wrong hobby.

Why do you even bother asking a question if you're just going to ignore the people who disagree with you and only accept the answer you wanted to hear?

go for it. atleast youre scratch building it.

i find it hilarious that people pay 50 bucks for some crapy looking imperial walls and the little turret thingy. it's lame, really lame.

@ Dakkamite

Aren't you cherry picking here?

Agustos opinion on this issue is no more (or any less) valid than the other ones presented in this thread.
It isn't a great mystery that you agree with someone that agrees with you.

You are still left with the fact that some people see such modifications of the ADL as modelling for advantage.
Going; "I can sleep soundly because the other players I talked to about this agree with me (because I dismiss those that disagree as; "playing the game wrong")" is not really a healthy thing to do.


...

You could always model your gretchin to look like they are standing on eachothers shoulders. Rule of Cool.

Yes, it's modelling for advantage. But, I know I certainly wouldn't call you out on it, and would look down on anyone who did, because it's a rather minor thing and it just makes sense to do.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Cherry Picking
[...]
Going; "I can sleep soundly because the other players I talked to about this agree with me (because I dismiss those that disagree as; "playing the game wrong")" is not really a healthy thing to do.

When did I do that?

Extremely obviously modeling for advantage, to the point where I would actually call over a judge if I saw it at a GT.

I'm a pretty lenient guy, but modeling something so that units can interact with it in a fundamentally different manner that favors you is nearly the definition of modelling for advantage.

I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

 DarkCorsair wrote:
Yes, it's modelling for advantage. But, I know I certainly wouldn't call you out on it, and would look down on anyone who did, because it's a rather minor thing and it just makes sense to do.

Exactly, the answer to the question is a resounding 'Yes, you would be modelling for advantage'. However, many scratch built units are of a different proportion to their intended unit. So long as it isn't ridiculous then you shouldn't be pulled up for it. Instead of lowering it simply put some Grot height holes in it.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

I'd be totally down for that, as long as I could fire the guns at BS 3 because theres a Gretchin on top directing the shots! (who also cannot fire that turn, and has a chance of being fired alongside the projectile!)

Extremely obviously modeling for advantage, to the point where I would actually call over a judge if I saw it at a GT.

I'm a pretty lenient guy, but modeling something so that units can interact with it in a fundamentally different manner that favors you is nearly the definition of modelling for advantage.

In that case, I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about some other models of mine. I converted some stormboys using helicopter blades and such from deff koptas, and placed them on shorted clear sticks atop rocks because it makes them look cooler. Now we have a model thats twice as tall as a standard Stormboy. Should I be able to use these? Can they now see over, and shoot over tall obstacles (and likewise get shot at when behind cover that would normally protect them?) or do we just 'count them' as normal sized stormboys whenever this issue comes up?

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

Or agree on a compromise ^

 phantommaster wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

Or agree on a compromise ^

I've been good enough to allow that THERE IS NO COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!

 Kingsley wrote:
Extremely obviously modeling for advantage, to the point where I would actually call over a judge if I saw it at a GT.

I'm a pretty lenient guy, but modeling something so that units can interact with it in a fundamentally different manner that favors you is nearly the definition of modelling for advantage.

Agreed.

The ADL is a specific model defined as a Battlefield Debris (Defence Line).

I think what you're building is not an ADL but a Barricade; you still get the 4+ cover but only +1 if you GtG.

BUT, if you opponent is OK with you treating it as an ADL, then who are we to argue!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and if it's a Barricade, you can't buy a QG

Alternatively you just use the Lobba batteries and you don't have to use LOS for firing.

Otherwise it's pretty clearly modeling for advantage. The ADL has a specific height and gretchin have a clear cut maximum height as far as the models are concerned. Changing either of these effects how they interact with it in terms of the TLOS system we have in 40k.

I'd let you do it in a friendly game, but at a tournament I think you'd be SOL.

By the logic of an aegis defence line and line of sight/line of fire, a marine can't fire over an aegis unless his gun is modelled so that he is holding it in the air above his head.

Or, we can stop being silly. The aegis has bulletholes in it, and slit's on the highest part's that are viewing points. A grot can't see over the very top, but can see through the holes and viewing point's of the model, ergo, i'd say it can do it no problem. Put the big gun, on the tall bit's, and the grot's, on the shortest bit's of the line, and they can see just fine

 Evileyes wrote:
By the logic of an aegis defence line and line of sight/line of fire, a marine can't fire over an aegis unless his gun is modelled so that he is holding it in the air above his head.

Or, we can stop being silly. The aegis has bulletholes in it, and slit's on the highest part's that are viewing points. A grot can't see over the very top, but can see through the holes and viewing point's of the model, ergo, i'd say it can do it no problem. Put the big gun, on the tall bit's, and the grot's, on the shortest bit's of the line, and they can see just fine

Reductio Ad Absurdum, (possibly) intentionally getting the rule wrong then an attempt to pass your opinion on as fact?
LOS is determined by the "models eye view". You remember the picture of classy ward pretending to be a space marine with lines coming out of his eyes, right?

 Evileyes wrote:
By the logic of an aegis defence line and line of sight/line of fire, a marine can't fire over an aegis unless his gun is modelled so that he is holding it in the air above his head.

No, because LoS is drawn from the eyes. But yes, my opponents claim cover for their guys from the Aegis even when my shooters are in base contact with it but on the higher sections of the wall, with the slits. Sigh. Makes Aegis quite crap for any direct-firing units. Which in terms of BT infantry is obviously everyone, and for SM infantry everyone except Sternguard shooting cover-ignoring rounds.

As long as your opponent agrees with you there is no problem.
Why not just put a whole lot of crates in a row behind the ADL to create a firing step that the Grots can stand on to see over. This way you are not modelling for advantage.

Sounds like a cool little project 

 vim_the_good wrote:
As long as your opponent agrees with you there is no problem.
Why not just put a whole lot of crates in a row behind the ADL to create a firing step that the Grots can stand on to see over. This way you are not modelling for advantage.

Well, by definition it's just as much MFA as making a custom defense line. You're altering the model to gain an advantage.

With that said, I wouldn't mind playing against a line like that myself.

I've got a custom defence line for my demons - it's pretty close to the aegis, and if anything slightly smaller so no modelling for advantage. However, if anyone picks me up on it (very rare) all I do is roll my eyes and pull out the boring 'standard' one that I bring along as well and use that.

It does mean having to take two lines along, but saves arguments.

the rules lawyers are always going to tell you no...it's what they do. And it probably wouldn't fly at a tourney

If you were across the table from me and broke out an orky looking grot sized ADL

1 - I'd say that's freakin cool! Let's do this!
2 - You're playing Orkz...outdated Orkz...toss the squig a bone. (if you did this with rapecrons or wardian knights, I'd tell you to go pound sand)
3 - I would ask for one addendum. any lager-than-grot sized models behind the line only get to use it as standard 5-6+ cover save

If people can make guys crouching legally I don't see why you can't model a Gretchen on his tip toes?

Are you sure he can't see if you put them right where 2 aegis line pieces meet?

And i was told on the bastions that as long as it has the same amount of fire slots you could model them where you want. There is no rule against custom models as long it is the same size or bigger than the original. Why can you not put the fire port where you want?

Your telling me you wouldn't allow this?

http://spyrle.blogspot.com/2012/08/eldar-aegis-defense-line-finished.html

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/486911.page

or the orc one in this post?

http://forums.bluegrassgamers.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6783


And are you all saying this guy can't even use this? b/c there are no gun slot like the original aegis. I hope TO would SLAP YOU and say it is silly every race is using an Imperial gun line --- get over it RULES LAWYER that so fits his race.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/491104.page

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?364612-Eldar-aegis-defense-line


I wouldn't have a problem with this:

http://40kaddict.blogspot.com/2012/10/nids-part-60-terrain-is-everything.html

The Tyranids can't use a quad gun but that just plain is awesome and should be allowed. I think it is silly to have every race using imperial models never felt right.



So your gonna tell this guy he can't use this bc the firing slots are the exact height of the original bastion? This was featured in White Dwarf. You think they a note under it BTW you can't use this?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/267497.page

I can't even believe you all. Shame, shame, shame, shame on you all. Hangs his head low.

People disagreeing with you does not make them rules lawyers.

Please remember rule 1

There is no rule in the rulebook allowing you to alter the supplied citadel miniature. Basic rules. Most people accept ruloe of cool but with modelling for advantage thrown in - and this is clearly the latter.

As a TO we always have the rule that converted models are assumed to be the standard model for LOS purposes, so people can make cool models b ut without being penalised or gaining advantage from this.

If we were to say that: "No, a grot can't use a regular ADL because they are too short (shortism, lengthism?) and would hinder their LoS, nor can they use a scratch or custom built one because that would be MFA (instead of viewing it as a cool conversion and something that benefits not only the game but the hobby as a whole)" I wonder what those people would say about ordinary IG units behind an ADL. If LoS is what is required, then how the heck would these squating guys go about using an ADL?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080043
They can't possibly see anything and I have still found myself on the other side of the table from IG-players with heavy weapons behind an ADL claiming both cover and LoS.

And since some of the players claiming that all Forgeworld should be ok, are these guys firing from a higher position than a grot?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-HEAVY-STUBBER-TEAM-1.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-LASCANNON-TEAM-1.html

And if that isn't close enough... how the heck would these guys be of any use behind... well... anything?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080055

There is something that is called RAI, there is something called "the spirit of the game", there is something called using ones senses. In 40K, as in every game, hell as in life itself, there are things that doesn't add up 100%. Sometimes we have to fudge things, sometimes we have to bend reality, rules and what is written just a little so that we can get on with things and let stuff run smoothly. Calling a ref because someone has made a cool custom wall for some grots.Sheeesh... I think this is why the casual, non competitive, beer and pretzel gamer and the competitive, tournament, WAMC will never see eye to eye when it comes to this hobby.

Agusto

ps: Mythra, I applaud you! That is my own point exactly... only you phrased yourself and found better images than I ever would have.

If we can post without the name calling please.

Thank you.

Considering that we are talking about height difference so slight that it could be covered by just basing your models slightly differently*, I'd be perfectly fine with this. I'd however expect you to model awesome grot-made scrap barricade.

(* Many people model all sort of crap on the bases of their models, and there are a shitton of manufacturers for scenic bases. Many of these add few millimetres to your models height. Also, just posing you model slightly differently will affect it's height this much.)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
People disagreeing with you does not make them rules lawyers.

Please remember rule 1

There is no rule in the rulebook allowing you to alter the supplied citadel miniature. Basic rules. Most people accept ruloe of cool but with modelling for advantage thrown in - and this is clearly the latter.

As a TO we always have the rule that converted models are assumed to be the standard model for LOS purposes, so people can make cool models b ut without being penalised or gaining advantage from this.

TLR version..."I'm not a rules lawyer, and here is a rule I just made up to prove it"

I needed a good laugh, thank you

all this over a guy trying to make reasonable use of the worst unit in the entire game.

One thing though, Dakkamite. What we here in Dakka think really doesn't matter. You should ask the people who you're actually playing with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

There is no rule in the rulebook allowing you to alter the supplied citadel miniature.

There is also no rule for allowing you to assemble them. There is however modelling section in BRB that tells you how to do that, it also tells you how to alter them...

I thought artillery uses the gun barrel for LOS. I don't have any of the Big Gunz models but surely they can reach over the ADL.

I'd play against it regardless. As long I can can shoot you while you're behind it then we'd be fine.

You should model grot 'cat flaps' on it

What i'd love to see, is some grot's with one of these...



Little grot periscope.
Though, if were gonna say that grot's cannot see or be seen over the ADL, doesn't it stand to reason they could't be shot -at- behind the line? Heck, if people are gonna pull the "Grot's can't see over the line" trick, then say fine, wrap your aegis tightly around an objective, and stick the grot's inside, where they are immune to shooting from all but the tallest models, or barrage.

But yeah. Put sand on your base, and you are a millimetre or so higher, enough to just see over. If someone calls you on it, they are just trying way to hard to find ways to deny you the game.

The ADL has slits in it. Are you 100% sure they can't draw LOS through them?

This kind of question, though, is why whenever I use an ADL it's going to just be the official model. Army-specific versions are a cool conversion opportunity, but at least if you use one out of the box there can be no disputes over modelling for advantage, WYSIWYG, etc.

More then anything I think your just looking for people to agree with you and you dont really care about the good reasons on the other side of that.

If you use grots and they cannot see over the walls use something else. Orks could see over the walls, so there you go. If you model a short wall that messes with LOS then you are modeling for advantage even if you are not doing it with that intent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you could take the wall and leave it as high as it is, but cut down certain areas, so you could both have a regular wall that is WYSIWYG and can still be used by grots.

Rotgut, by your definition of the rules concerning the ADL, then the IG-heavy weapon teams that I posted pictures of (since they CLEARLY couldn't see over the walls) would, according to you, also be disqualified for the use of the fortifications, or? Just to be clear, yes or no? Because if one kind of model with a LoS from closer to the ground would be disallowed I think, in the spirit of fairness, that ALL models with low LoS should be punished.

Agusto

Agusto wrote:
Rotgut, by your definition of the rules concerning the ADL, then the IG-heavy weapon teams that I posted pictures of (since they CLEARLY couldn't see over the walls) would, according to you, also be disqualified for the use of the fortifications, or? Just to be clear, yes or no? Because if one kind of model with a LoS from closer to the ground would be disallowed I think, in the spirit of fairness, that ALL models with low LoS should be punished.

Agusto

I havent really followed the thread, just commented on the original post and skipped through a few argumentative posts. The links I clicked on that you posted has a guy sitting up taller that would be seen even if the guy laying down could not so it could still be targeted as both of them are one unit. I dont know that weapon teams can even use an ADL, if they cant there is zero reason to bring them up, if they can fair enough. LOS is from the eyes of the model or the gun? Either way if you are going from the laying down model/gun why would you put it behind a wall, it couldnt fire through anyway? I dont really know what your question is since you wouldnt put a laying down sniper or anything similiar behind a wall since it couldnt fire. All the ADL is, is a wall correct?

if the ADL didnt have a specific model then sure no dramas...
sadly no... i cant field an "epic" version of a thunderhawk and call it the real thing same for a titan.... 40k has specific models and rules that apply for them....
now as has been said, its just battlefield junk.. that give a +1 better cover save when GTG behind it.. (wait just realised you cant position battlefield debree to your advantage like an ADL) yeah no sorry no can do, unless i can field the epic version of titans for cover saves

You could just have a defense line with vertical slits in it rather than the horizontal ones, you could then draw los for big guns using those.

The reason I asked is because some of the models that GW produces are posed and positioned in different ways. So for the sake of debate, and since there are some people here who claims that it is reeeeally important that a model physically should be able to look over the top, are we really boiling down to, not "modelling to advantage" but " buying models to advantage"? "40k has specific models and rules that apply for them.... " has been said. Should we then have different rulings, not depending on the unit or troop type, but on the actual sculpt of the model?
As an example:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070138
Should the model on the right be allowed to fire over a wall while the model to the left wouldn't? And let us not begin with all the issues that could be caused if I would happen to like some variation in my force and have a model with a sniper rifle in my CCS that is lying down like this:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135
As I stated before, there has to (or rather it is my personal opinion that there should) be some leeway, some freedom of thought and imagination when it comes to the actual physical models on the table and the living, moving units they are supposed to be representing. Otherwise we should have a new FAQ from GW derived from Plato's (and Socrates') Theory of Forms.

Yes, this is a grey area and we have all seen clear cases on modelling to ones advantage but a grot ADL is not (in my book, again) such a terrible thing.

Like one guy said too - there are plenty of bases that would put you over also and decorative bases are not illegal.

Agusto I see where you are coming from completely. Though the issue here is the OP is choosing to make an item that already has an official product.

The grots are to short for an ADL. He can easily change the way the firing ports are like others have said, could add debris to the bases to make the models stand a little taller, or use a different unit that can use the ADL. Heck he could just say in friendly games that the grots can shoot out, and the other player can shoot back.

What it comes down to is if hes playing friendly games or in a tournament. I dont think bringing up kneeling models really matters, like I said I dont know if heavy weapon teams can use an ADL, but with the snipers I would still play it as WYSIWYG, if they cant see over a wall or through a wall why put them there in the first place?

Rotgut, I also see your point of view. I respect it, even though I can't say that I agree Because for me, a model that is kneeling or standing doesn't matter for me. A model laying down could easily be tilted upon the edge of the ADL to represent the model standing up or something similar. For me there has to be a common, shared understanding of intent between the players. Otherwise, any game involving models of representation is impossible. Hence, I personally would have no issue with a player using grots, ratlings or other smaller models behind a prepared piece of fortification. I would just "pretend" that they all had boxes to stand on or that there were steps dug out in the mound behind the wall or something that enabled them to stand and shoot, just as I would pretend that a model lying down could stand up. In a world where we pretend that undead robots clash with space elves who have chosen a BDSM style of life, we pretend that supersonic air superiority fighters can safely strafe one specific dude and not the dude an inch to the left or right or that, due to some strange notion, it makes sense that only one person at a time can throw a grenade or that George over there wouldn't pick up Billy's meltagun after he had been killed and try to blow that raider out of the sky... All we do in 40K ( and WHFB) is pretending! So I have to rest my case with saying that should I face an opponent, in a friendly or tournament setting, I would be ok with pretty much anything as long as he or she was a decent fellow and made his or her point sound resonable. "Grots standing on buckets to peer over, you say? As long as I can shoot back, go ahead "

That is all I have to say in this matter: Agusto

Whats so wrong with shortening the height of an ADL for grots to see over? that just reduces the effectiveness of an ADL which would be a disadvantage since only grots would be able to gain the cover save granted by the ADL, ork sized models would be stuck using regular cover saves. Similar how bases can be of a larger size from standard, theres no advantage to it, only disadvantages.

About the you can only use the official model of the army list entry, then you are saying that all converted models are not allowed to be used. I have a custom sanguinor that doesnt use any sanguinor parts, many scratch build their own characters as well.

I agree with you Agusto, which is why I said in a friendly game it doesnt matter, as long as you say hey I can shoot you and you can shoot me back.

The issue is in non friendly games, if he goes to a tournament there will be different rules, which is why I said he should put the models on debris so they stand taller or cut down certain parts of the ADL so its still the same size for the most part but grots can see over or through it.

I have seen people in a tournament playing ork's, who have been allowed to use this (With 2 long peices cut into short pieces to make the proper aegis line dimensions) as a defence line, when playing ork's. It counted as a fair conversion, and I have to agree. We can convert vehicles, models, whatever we like, and most tournament's will be ok with it, as long as it is not specifically silly for advantage, like changing the position of a gun on a tank to give it better range.

I can see this working, it costs the same as an aegis, and I don't personally think it's a coincedence that this, the city ruins wall, and the aegis defence line, all come with the same "length" of walling. With 2 peices cut in half, this has the exact dimensions of an aegis, and so i beleive GW might have made the aegis in the same dimensions, so that people could use these as well, dependant on army theme.



I would find this cool, thematic, and totally plausable, more plausable than ork's bringing imperial barricades with them in a battlefield.

Agusto wrote:
If we were to say that: "No, a grot can't use a regular ADL because they are too short (shortism, lengthism?) and would hinder their LoS, nor can they use a scratch or custom built one because that would be MFA (instead of viewing it as a cool conversion and something that benefits not only the game but the hobby as a whole)" I wonder what those people would say about ordinary IG units behind an ADL. If LoS is what is required, then how the heck would these squating guys go about using an ADL?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080043
They can't possibly see anything and I have still found myself on the other side of the table from IG-players with heavy weapons behind an ADL claiming both cover and LoS.

And since some of the players claiming that all Forgeworld should be ok, are these guys firing from a higher position than a grot?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-HEAVY-STUBBER-TEAM-1.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-LASCANNON-TEAM-1.html

And if that isn't close enough... how the heck would these guys be of any use behind... well... anything?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080055

There is something that is called RAI, there is something called "the spirit of the game", there is something called using ones senses. In 40K, as in every game, hell as in life itself, there are things that doesn't add up 100%. Sometimes we have to fudge things, sometimes we have to bend reality, rules and what is written just a little so that we can get on with things and let stuff run smoothly. Calling a ref because someone has made a cool custom wall for some grots.Sheeesh... I think this is why the casual, non competitive, beer and pretzel gamer and the competitive, tournament, WAMC will never see eye to eye when it comes to this hobby.

Agusto

ps: Mythra, I applaud you! That is my own point exactly... only you phrased yourself and found better images than I ever would have.

This guy wins. End thread.

that's good, gretchins cant use it but neither can alot of guard units either. works for me.

when it comes down to it - make whatever models you want, do what you like but here are a few things:

Instead of paying the 100 or whatever points, just bring terrain that would give them the cover save...I mean - your opponent CANNOT deny you using terrain AND you save the 100 points.

Also, you could field and see what the opponents say. If they complain - then take the time to fill in the 100 points you spent. If it is at a Tourney, verify beforehand with the TO and have a backup list if they decline it.

As for the people who are ranting MFA - I would better hope that every model you field is built EXACTLY as they are supposed to, no modifications and are on the flat base (nothing scenic that raises them even a little) or are always counting them as the model is supposed to be - otherwise you are MFA, according to your own statements that ANY change to a model is MFA since they MUST be built and such as they are supplied.

When it comes down to it - what all of us say matters nothing - it is either the opponent in a friendly game or the TO at a tournament that get to decide what is and what is not MFA.

Actually a big issue and reason why the ADL is used is the quad cannon and its anti-air capability, which many armies, such as Orks, desperately need.

the aegis line has small gun ports in each section,

they look to be at grot eye level to me,

why cant they see/(be seen) through those?

easysauce wrote:
the aegis line has small gun ports in each section,

they look to be at grot eye level to me,

why cant they see/(be seen) through those?

They aren't grot eye level. They are above their heads. Grots are REAAAAALLY short.

edit: Heh, my army comes up on the first page of GIS for 'gretchin aegis'

 Mythra wrote:

I wouldn't have a problem with this:

http://40kaddict.blogspot.com/2012/10/nids-part-60-terrain-is-everything.html

The Tyranids can't use a quad gun but that just plain is awesome and should be allowed. I think it is silly to have every race using imperial models never felt right.

Why thank you! For some reason when I made it I got a bit carried away and it was actually a whole long section too long to be considered legal. I don't know how I got my measurements so bad but I've since stopped using the extra piece. Additionally one of the smaller pieces is taller than originally planned but I've never had an opponent claim I couldn't shoot from behind it, even with Termagants but then they could theoretically stand on their hind legs and shoot over the top.

Ultimately Dakkamite you need to be asking this question of your local gaming group. There will always be folk who will disagree to your hoped for response on an open forum but it's the people you play with who it matters most to and hopefully they will want to have fun and game, not pick apart the realities of an abstract war game. Failing all that mount each wall section on a base and added ammo crates and sand bags behind so the little grots can stand a bit taller.



Oh and this won me Monument of Legend - best fortification at March's Throne of Skulls

Superb and congrats on the award

That looks really cool. Normally I don't like Tyranid stuff, but that's a great piece.

We should all have fun and get super picky.

Somehow I think players would find many more stock figures that can't fire correctly over an Aegis if you require an Aegis to be on as thick of a base as GW figures rather than sitting at tabletop level. Why? Because all GW figures are being treated as being taller than they are because of the thickness of a slottabase. It automatically gives every figure's eye-level at least a +3mm in height over non-based terrain, before taking any sort of basing material into account.

Grots would actually get MORE of a disadvantage if you raised a ADL on a 3mm thick base.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
We should all have fun and get super picky.

Somehow I think players would find many more stock figures that can't fire correctly over an Aegis if you require an Aegis to be on as thick of a base as GW figures rather than sitting at tabletop level. Why? Because all GW figures are being treated as being taller than they are because of the thickness of a slottabase. It automatically gives every figure's eye-level at least a +3mm in height over non-based terrain, before taking any sort of basing material into account.

Grots would actually get MORE of a disadvantage if you raised a ADL on a 3mm thick base.

Does the GW ADL infact come with such bases?which im sure it deosnt in which case you dont need to ever model it with them....

So what do you guys think about tau hammerheads and ADL. I personally don't know anyone who uses the little hoover base that comes with it. Everyone just moves it on its landing gears. Is this "modeling for advantage" because now I will get a cover save the from ADL where if it is on its stand it won't?

I literally made an account just to post on this thread (although this won't be my last post). I was planning on becoming an active member later but hey I got an idea to solve this dilemma.

I would suggest modelling an ADL using something like this:
http://www.2expertsdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MetalGrid.jpg

Why? Because the grots can see through it and since it counts as an ADL it still grants the usual benefits. Make it the same height as the standard ADL and vehicles that normally benefit from it still can. Fluff reasoning? The grots and Orks "believe" it to be just as effective as the standard version so it works. The only disadvantage would be that it doesn't block LOS but even the standard version is not designed to do that effectively.

It's Modeling for advantage.

You're modeling it to gain an advantage.

That said, not many people would care. You probably have nothing to worry about.

But if someone is insisting that it isn't modeling for advantage, well, they're pretty wrong. It's quite clear-cut.

-TheCaptain

Apparently it's 'advantageous' to expose your soldiers to more firepower, thank god I only play WH40K with human beings that have the capacity to see the odd shade of grey. Robo-hammer sounds pretty dull. Turn up to play me with your own Aegis that you've scratch built and shown an interest in actually engaging with the hobby in a more constructive fashion than strawmanning incessantly on dakka, and I'll play you. I know it's an Aegis, so do you, lets roll some damn dice.

inb4 EETS THE ROOLEZ AZ RITEN!!1

What I've gotten from this thread:
-- Steel Legion, Vostroyan, and many other IG HWT's are unable to effectively utilize ADL's.
-- Using the kneeling legs for models because they are cool is pointless if you want to use an ADL.
-- Modifying GW figures and creating cool models that win painting awards will get you punished by TO's.
-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it. That being said, we've pretty consistently played that if you are in base contact with a barricade such as an ADL, you can shoot over it without impediment, regardless of TLOS. Come down to Carbondale and we'll totally give you a fair shake! (Plus, custom ADL's are always a welcome sight on my battlefields!)

-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it.

What disadvantages? The only possible one would be not being able to put vehicles behind it as easily, but that's not the OP's intent anyway. Making it smaller is a pure advantage.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

Except it probably won't work, since you can look over the aegis line if you have a taller model or an elevated position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

Except it probably won't work, since you can look over the aegis line if you have a taller model or an elevated position.

Not if the grots are in base to base contact or just very close to the aegis. You'd need a very tall model to see that.

Put a step behind it, and count them as any other model.
If they're on the step, they can fire and get shot at.
Behind the step, LoS rules.

 Dakkamite wrote:

-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

isnt B2B with an ADL considered assault distance etc.. so you'll need to be an inch or so back then they are Over it and assaulting you OR shooting you..

 Dakkamite wrote:
Hey Dakka, I'm looking to use Big Guns and an ADL in my next game, and its just come to my attention that when using the default models, the ADL is too tall for my Gretchin to see over, meaning they cannot use two of the three gun options. Since I'm building an ADL from scratch (it'll be an 'Ork defense line' made out of scrap!) would it be 'modelling for advantage' to make the ADL shorter, to put holes or gaps, or to make the top half somewhat permeable (ie spikes instead of a solid wall) that would both allow the Gretchin to fire their weapons and artillery from behind it, and also equally expose the models to incoming fire as opposed to putting them 'out of sight'?

This is absolutely, totally, and completely modeling for advantage.

"Hey guys, is changing the stock GW model so my models gain an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have count as MFA?"
Yes of bloody course it does!

The Rule of Cool would more than likely apply if you are going to scratch build it and it looks awesome, and I imagine no one would have a problem with it in friendly games; but be aware that you are RAW cheating, and In no tournament would they allow you to do this.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
isnt B2B with an ADL considered assault distance etc.. so you'll need to be an inch or so back then they are Over it and assaulting you OR shooting you..

Ah, but therein lies the dilemma. You're not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy unless assaulting. And if you're 1" away from the grots you won't necessarily be able to see them, thus you can't assault them. Or shoot them. Or anything. There are ways around this by approaching the line in a certain way, but it's still a bit of a silly situation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it.

What disadvantages? The only possible one would be not being able to put vehicles behind it as easily, but that's not the OP's intent anyway. Making it smaller is a pure advantage.

Well, it wouldn't shield vehicles as effectively, including walkers. I think it might not give cover, at that height, to a number of the larger ork infantry, including megabosses or those helicopter things the orks like to rock.

Plus, the shorter his ADL is, the shorter my models can be and still see completely over it, without the ADL granting cover at all. [Bill Murray impersonation] So I got that going for me. [/Bill Murray impersonation.]

I'm not saying that's how it should be run at tournaments, or that it isn't modelling for advantage. At the same time, I'd play against it. It's fluffy, and it would look better on the tabletop, which is more important to me than a 'RAW or die' adherence to the rules.

Page 8 BRB 'Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas,drama and creativity to the garne. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows;it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.'

I think it sounds cool. I may even consider making one myself. The idea is for it to be fun to play, I'm sure I recall Jervis saying that was the most important rule (or it could have been the spirit of the game) in WD. For every one that won't let you use it, I expect there are two that will.

Page 8 BRB 'Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas,drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows;it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.'

Unfortunately in the current day and age of 40K gaming, that notion has fallen by the wayside more than ever. In fact, I think you will find many people on Dakkadakka that will call those two sentences "complete crap", to support "their" interpretation of the rules over something they don;t want a random other gamer using. And that's downright unfortunate.

This entire thread is a giant opportunity to remember why I don't play other than with close friends, and especially not in 6th edition. In previous editions/years, people would throw a firing step behind a homemade, properly Orky barricade for their Grots to fire from, and everyone would call it good.

Now, the very notion involved name calling and rules lawyering.

Rules-lawering an Aegis line to be "too tall for Grots to fire over" is like saying that a Wraithguard unit can't fire out of a particular bunker by arguing that the "human eye-level firing slit" is too low for them to see out of. I very much doubt that the incredibly Imperial-centric model for ADL was meant to be the bog-standard for what any homemade one can be made to measurements from, and that it was somehow meant for Grots, kneeling models, and prone-lying Heavy Weapons Teams to be unable to "fire over it".

Honestly, it's taking the stupid part of "true line of sight" to the extreme. There's a reason most miniatures game rules are abstract. In any other game system, an analogy of the ADL would simply end up being a barricade that affects all infantry-style models in the exact same way, no matter their relative height, stance or basing style, be they Grot, or 28mm Human or Wraithlord/Ogryn-size model.

I'd play against it. However, if I lost, I would totally blame the 3mm reduction in height of your aegis defense line for the loss and tip the table over.

I think the only way to beat someone so picky about to rules, is to play their game. The rules say, that you must place the pieces of the aegis end to end. But they don't say what way up, you have to place it, so put them down on their sides with the bulge in the air, so that grot's can see over it, and still have some cover behind it. If people are going to get so nitpicky with you, then just ask them to show you where it says you can't do this.

I would allow it. Just use your imagination. The grotz are jumping or climbing the barracade to fire and be fired upon.

Agusto wrote:
Because for me, a model that is kneeling or standing doesn't matter for me.

Which is fine as a house rule, but not how the rules of the game work. Or how they have ever worked.

Hence, I personally would have no issue with a player using grots, ratlings or other smaller models behind a prepared piece of fortification. I would just "pretend" that they all had boxes to stand on or that there were steps dug out in the mound behind the wall or something that enabled them to stand and shoot,...

That's certainly one approach. The other would be to assume that models that are too short to see over a wall are unable to see over the wall. This approach makes just as much sense, and has the added benefit of following the rules of the game.


Otherwise, where exactly do you draw the line? Should we also assume that your grots are carrying stepladders with them so that they can see over intervening battlewagons?

Oh god, this thread.

This thread.

Uh.

Just ask the organizer if it's OK. This thread gets nowhere.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
This entire thread is a giant opportunity to remember why I don't play other than with close friends, and especially not in 6th edition. In previous editions/years, people would throw a firing step behind a homemade, properly Orky barricade for their Grots to fire from, and everyone would call it good.

Now, the very notion involved name calling and rules lawyering.

Rules-lawering an Aegis line to be "too tall for Grots to fire over" is like saying that a Wraithguard unit can't fire out of a particular bunker by arguing that the "human eye-level firing slit" is too low for them to see out of. I very much doubt that the incredibly Imperial-centric model for ADL was meant to be the bog-standard for what any homemade one can be made to measurements from, and that it was somehow meant for Grots, kneeling models, and prone-lying Heavy Weapons Teams to be unable to "fire over it".

Ho, ho! Calm down buddy!

The OP asked if it's MFA. Yes, it is MFA!
If the OP asked if we'd allow it in a game, I can assure you that most answers would be 'Yes!'.

People should really start to learn this on YMDC.
If you ask for the rules on something, you will get the unbiased, factual and RAW rules on it.
Because we could tell him all day long that we'd allow it but that doesn't change how his playgroup feels about it.

rather then cheating just put the gun at the side of the adl where the grot has line of sight

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Oh god, this thread.

This thread.

Uh.

Just ask the organizer if it's OK. This thread gets nowhere.

Yeah I realized that a while ago.

Put your grots on scenic bases... some of the ones from MAS or Scibor can add a good 1" to your model's height. And people can't whine about it.
Seriously, in the realm of 'modelling for advantage' there are far more egregious examples than this.
If anyone tries to tell you off for this, don't play them and you've probably just saved yourself 2 hours of tedium.

Frogomatik wrote:
I would ask for one addendum. any lager-than-grot sized models behind the line only get to use it as standard 5-6+ cover save

This.

Here's how I decide if somethings MFA.

1. IS it actually modelled out of the ordinary?

TRUE? Go to 2.
FALSE? go to 5.

2. Is it modelled without altering parts?

TRUE? Go to 5.
FALSE? Go to 3.

3. Is the Model Altered for reasons other than Advantage and aesthetics? (stands better, takes less damage when handled, bits don't break off...)

TRUE? go to 5.
FALSE? go to 4.

4. Is the model Altered in such a way that it gains an advantage? (Aesthetically pleasing or not.)

TRUE? Go to 6.
FALSE? go to 5.


5. No, it is not altered for advantage.
6. Yes, it is altered for advantage.

My perspective:

It is modelling for advantage. That is, I feel, undeniable - you said yourself that you are modelling it a particular way to gain a particular advantage!

If it looks cool (especially if it looks more Orky), I don't care for a casual game.

If you plan to take it to a tournament, check with the TO first. He may say yes, he may say no, but either way you know ahead of time.

This whole thing blows my mind.

Clearly, he's modeling an ADL for the advantage of grots being able to see over it, but he's also voluntarily taking the disadvantage of the grots being able to be shot at, since they can see over it. He's modeling for disadvantage, too, right?

Then, people point out that there is a 'stock model'. This isn't stock car racing. The table officials don't come over with a template to make sure your model is the exact same height, width, and length in millimeters as the stock model. The fact that there is a stock model doesn't obligate you to use the model as stock, or even buy the stock model. Would it have been ok if he had made the model before the stock ADL was available for sale, or would his defense line suddenly become MFA?

People are claiming that grots, as assembled, can't see over a defense line, as assembled. However, modeling your grots on scenic bases is legal, even though that makes them able to see over the ADL. So raising the grots is legal, but lowering the defense line is illegal? How is it legal to intentionally raise the model for better visibility, when it's illegal to intentionally lower the wall scenery for better visibility? Don't both modeling choices have a lasting effect on TLOS in the game?

Plus, evidently, if you built a defense line, and it turned out to be lower, and THEN you put grots into it, it would be legal, because you didn't INTEND to model it for advantage, but if you INTENDED to model it so that grots could see over it, then it is illegal. I have a problem with any 'rule' that requires us to figure out the intent of the modeler. What if he changed his mind and decided not to model it for advantage, but accidentally still built one with a lower vision threshold. Could he use it then? What if he intended to model one with a lower vision slot, but didn't get around to it, and bought one off the internet that happened to be modeled that way by someone who's intention was pure, but he didn't know the precise measurements until he got it?

If someone goes to all the trouble to make their own ADL that has a slightly lower wall, then they are getting the same benefits and penalties out of it all the time. Smaller models can fire out of it, but smaller models can now be fired upon in cases where they would be out of sight in a larger ADL. The ADL will block less line of sight than a standard ADL, both for good and for ill. It's not like he's asking people to pretend that the grots are standing on tippy-toe, so you have to imagine whether you have line of sight to them or not. He's got a model and he wants to use it.

What if someone's 'wrecked Rhino' or 'crater' is taller than the stock model? What if someone uses an old Terminator which is smaller than the new one? What if someone assembles their battlesuit in a crouch, rather than standing up tall?

Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

MFA is a player convention, and one that most tournaments adhere to. If a model gives you an advantage over the model that GW puts out them mots tournaments will either:

1) They will let you use the model, but you have to pretend it is the same dimensions as the GW model.
2) They will not let you use the model and you must use the correct model.
or
3) They will let you use the model as is and gain the advantage.

Most tournaments will play it as #1

Da Butcha wrote:
The fact that there is a stock model doesn't obligate you to use the model as stock, or even buy the stock model.

No, it doesn't. There is, however, a general assumption that the rules are written for the 'official' models, though, and so changing the model changes the way they function outside of how they were designed to work.

In a game where two guardsmen can cost the same number of points but function differently due to one of them being modelled kneeling down, it's up to the individual players to decide just how big a deal this actually is in practice.

However, modeling your grots on scenic bases is legal, ...

No, actually, it's not. It's commonly accepted... but the rules, while mentioning that some people use scenic bases, stop short of specifically allowing them.

Plus, evidently, if you built a defense line, and it turned out to be lower, and THEN you put grots into it, it would be legal, because you didn't INTEND to model it for advantage,...

If you accept that using a wall with different proportions to the official model is legal, then whether or not it is modelling for advantage has no effect on its legality.

MFA governs whether or not your opponent thinks you are trying to gain an unfair advantage, not about whether or not the model is legal. MFA doesn't in itself make the model illegal, unless you judge that all conversions are technically illegal in the first place.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

You find it in the same place as the rules that allow you to assemble your models.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

You find it in the same place as the rules that allow you to assemble your models.

So not in the rules then?

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

 Happyjew wrote:

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

Either there isn't one, or we take the modelling section as such (It's in the rulebook, after all.) That's why bringing up that there are no rules that allow converting is absolutely pointless. There are exactly as much rules support for converting models as there is for assembling them.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

Either there isn't one, or we take the modelling section as such (It's in the rulebook, after all.) That's why bringing up that there are no rules that allow converting is absolutely pointless. There are exactly as much rules support for converting models as there is for assembling them.

I don't see this section in my rulebook on hand. Just Introduction, The Rules and Reference.

 Happyjew wrote:

I don't see this section in my rulebook on hand. Just Introduction, The Rules and Reference.

Luckily my rulebook still has it, so I'm allowed to assemble my models!

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

Ill will take the lack of an answer or page reference to mean that it is not in the rules and your response of

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

to have no basis in any rules at all.

EVERYTHING IN THE RULEBOOK IS RULES, INCLUDING THE WARDIAN FLUFF THAT TELLS US THAT EVERY ARMY IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE'S IN EVERY CONCIEVABLE WAY.

in other words, the rulebook is not a peer reviewed journal. Not everything in it is relevant to its topic.

Actually the rulebook DOES have a section called "The Rules", so it is apropos to assume that is where the rules are located

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the rulebook DOES have a section called "The Rules", so it is apropos to assume that is where the rules are located

Exactly this.

No mention of converting in the rules.

Modeling for advantage... Grots are not tall enough to see over an ADL.

Just like how kneeling Tau can't see over it, but they can see under a skimmer. So a whole unit of kneeling tau can see under a skimmer.

The only grots in my collection who can see over a ADL is the old 'head honcho' grot, a few of the metal gorkamorka grots which are large. Buying stock models who can see is different than modeling for advantage.

Grots can get cover from literally everything, not sure there is even a need for an ADL for them.

They wanted an ADL for the Guns crew, not just o hide behind the ADL out of sight.

Pure, unadulterated MFA, but saying that apparently makes you "taht guy", according to some in thsi thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Exactly this.

No mention of converting in the rules.

Or assembling (assembling models is on p. 312 of BRB, in the Hobby section.) So you cannot actually play the fething game. In order to play the game, you have to refer to the Hobby section content, so whether they're technically rules or not is irrelevant.

My point: saying that there are no rules for allowing you to use converted models implicates that you could use that same model unconverted. Which following your logic is not actually the case; you can't use the model at all, as there are no rules to allow you to assemble it in any manner. If you actually meant that any assembled models cannot be used at all, then say that (but you probably didn't.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Buying stock models who can see is different than modeling for advantage.

Really? (We already had this thread a while ago.) So If I buy a kneeling sniper it is OK, but if I convert one from bits it is not? And how about multi-part plastic kits? How I know which bit goes where? Can I mix kits?

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Exactly this.

No mention of converting in the rules.

Or assembling (assembling models is on p. 312 of BRB, in the Hobby section.) So you cannot actually play the fething game. In order to play the game, you have to refer to the Hobby section content, so whether they're technically rules or not is irrelevant.

See that is the thing, My rulebook does not have a Page 312.

 DeathReaper wrote:

See that is the thing, My rulebook does not have a Page 312.

I hope you haven't assembled any models then!

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ill will take the lack of an answer or page reference to mean that it is not in the rules.

It's there. Look for 'the hobby'

 Peregrine wrote:
Q: Would it be modeling for advantage to replace the standard model with a different one for the specific purpose of allowing better LOS for the models I want to put behind it?
A: Yes.

Agreed.

Dr Coconut wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ill will take the lack of an answer or page reference to mean that it is not in the rules.

It's there. Look for 'the hobby'

What page? Introduction (pgs iii-xi)? The rules (pgs 2-132)? Or Reference (pgs 133-156)?

Look in the index. It tells you the page. It's between 'miniatures showcase' and 'battles'

There's a few more pages after 156!!! The last page is 432

Not in the small rulebook there isnt.

You're not looking in THE rule book then. The small one is a get you started book with simplified rules

Alternatively, the small rule book is all you "need". The BRB just has extra stuff.

(Post is just as valid as Dr Coconut's)

As for the actual topic of modelling for advantage, as it has been noted, it is a convention, not a rule. For me slight variation like this is perfectly acceptable considering that same effect could be achieved by using slightly larger grot models (that do exist) or basing them slightly differently. Models in this game can vary in size depending on when they're manufactured, or how they're assembled, so getting nit-picky over few millimetres seems pretty pointless.

Dr Coconut wrote:
You're not looking in THE rule book then. The small one is a get you started book with simplified rules

Wrong. The small Rulebook has ALL the "The Rules" pages as the main rulebook.

Dr Coconut wrote:
You're not looking in THE rule book then. The small one is a get you started book with simplified rules

Where on earth did you get that idea?

The rules in the small book are the exact same rules section as is found in the big book. It just lacks the extra sections that deal with modelling and fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

See that is the thing, My rulebook does not have a Page 312.

I hope you haven't assembled any models then!

Do you honestly not see a difference between assembling models for their intended use, and modifying models to perform differently to how they were designed?

The only small one I have is the one from aobr, and based my comment on that. It still isn't the brb though, and so isn't the complete rules

Dr Coconut wrote:
The only small one I have is the one from aobr, and based my comment on that. It still isn't the brb though, and so isn't the complete rules

..which was a complete copy of ALL the 5th edition rules from the larger rulebook

Again: look at your large hardcopy, and note the section called "The RULES". Every.Single.Page from there is in the 6th edition mini rulebook. It contains ALL the rules

 insaniak wrote:

Do you honestly not see a difference between assembling models for their intended use, and modifying models to perform differently to how they were designed?

Yes I do. It was merely a response to claim that converting is not allowed by the rules, which is a silly point to make.

Ultimately this is about whether altering the model gives unfair advantage and this is the basis how it should be judged. Now it feels bit iffy that the OPs explicit purpose was to keep the grots shooting instead of just model an awesome looking scrap wall, but the intention of the modeller should not really matter; it would be absurd if the state of mind of the modeller in the moment of making the conversion would affect whether the model is OK to use or not. I said earlier why to me this doesn't seem like unfair advantage: difference is so slight that the same effect could be achieved by choosing the largest grot models from the model range or basing the grots slightly differently. As I'm not going to claim that people can't use some obscure old grot models of give their soldiers few millimetres of scenic basing, I really can't have problem with this wall either.

The thing is, Grots are small enough to give cover to orks but the orks can shoot over the grots without giving cover in the other direction.

Grots explicitly can do this where other models cannot. They have an advantage all other 28mm cannot do, so this idea that all 28mm infantry are equal is not true.

Grots have other advantages, and one of their disadvantages is they can't use an ADL.

And I have those ork barricades, and I use them, and most grots still can't see over them. And I wouldn't expect an advantage from a cinematic grot and a themed custom ADL to change how the core rules of the game work.

And grots can still use a quadgun to shoot flyers since usually the LOS from the grount to the sky, the grot can see.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Do you honestly not see a difference between assembling models for their intended use, and modifying models to perform differently to how they were designed?

Yes I do. It was merely a response to claim that converting is not allowed by the rules, which is a silly point to make.

No sillier than saying

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

In response to my post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

"a converted model can never be legal as per the rules" Is a true statement. It is not false like you claim, I was just correcting you.

Q: Would it be modeling for advantage to replace the standard model with a different one for the specific purpose of allowing better LOS for the models I want to put behind it?
A: Yes. In fact, this is the very definition.

Q: Would you care?
A: In a pretzels game? No. But at a tournament I may snap off your car's antenna and start whipping you with it while shrieking "underhanded cozener!"

Q: Would it be considered modelling for advantage if I had little piles of skulls and stuff behind the line, as part of the terrain, that the Grots could be placed upon so that they could then see over the wall?
A: Still yes, but someone would have to be TFG himself to call you on it in that case, as you've now blurred the lines between "modelling for advantage" and simply "modelling". Rule of Cool would sway my vote.

Here's how this dilemma should be solved.

I am one of those who is of the belief that 40k and Competitive 40k are two completely different games. What you are describing is perfectly acceptable in 40k, but not at all in Competitive 40k.

So, OP, how do you 40k?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Q: Would it be considered modelling for advantage if I had little piles of skulls and stuff behind the line, as part of the terrain, that the Grots could be placed upon so that they could then see over the wall?
A: Still yes, but someone would have to be TFG himself to call you on it in that case, as you've now blurred the lines between "modelling for advantage" and simply "modelling". Rule of Cool would sway my vote.

Considering the ADL goes directly to the ground and has nothing able to be stood on, this is way worse than 'cinematic tip toe' grots. It changes ADLs into a 'Bring whatever terrain you want in whatever shape gives you the most advantage'

Page 95, "Use Your Imagination!"

This alone makes me think that terrain is supposed to be modelled in a fluffy way, and that converting models, particularly terrain pieces, is encouraged in the rules.

Regardless, if your opponent rules lawyers you, it is your obligation to rules lawyer him back. Use those grots as impassable terrain for enemy units, and stick some flash gitz or some such behind them. I'd bring your converted ADL and the standard one, and ask the TO before the game begins. As any warhammer gamer knows, it is manipulating the gaps in the rules that makes you win, and not the rules themselves, whenever you face a rules lawyer.

And how does that differ from the shape of every other piece of terrain?

I only got through the first before the thought of modeling your grots to be holding their weapons over their heads to be able to shoot over the ADL "Gangsta" style got me ROFL.

As to the issue of modeling for advantage, there is the little spoken of concept of "modeling for disadvantage" where in you make a change in a model that causes a disadvantage to your unit(s) in order to allow the model to be use at all. In the case of scratch building you own Ork-ified ADL so that your grots can see over the wall is in fact downgrading being albe to ignore range attacks for a 4+ cover save. I'd allow it, seeing as any other unit that uses it still only receives the listed 4+ cover save due to it being an ADL.

SJ

Xyrael wrote:
This alone makes me think that terrain is supposed to be modelled in a fluffy way, and that converting models, particularly terrain pieces, is encouraged in the rules.

It implies that, and encourages you to make up rules. You should note that the callout boxes like that one aren't actually rules.

Regardless, if your opponent rules lawyers you, it is your obligation to rules lawyer him back.

... What? Playing by the rules is being a rules lawyer?
So if I insist that your orks hit on a 5+ for being BS2 that's being a rules lawyer?

Use those grots as impassable terrain for enemy units

... they are. I have no idea what you're getting at?

and ask the TO before the game begins.

Yes, this will solve any arguments. And the TO should insist that the "regular" ADL be used as long as you're honest and point out that the modified one changes what models are allowed to see through it.

As any warhammer gamer knows, it is manipulating the gaps in the rules that makes you win, and not the rules themselves, whenever you face a rules lawyer.

No, it's normally good tactics (including list building) and not making rules up that make you win - not trying to easter egg. Because as soon as you make up a "hole in the rules" to "abuse" you'll only get madder when it's proven to not actually work that way.

I'd model it how I like. If anyone objects, I'd either drop the ADL (if they were nice about it) or not play 'em (if they weren't). If I were playing against a modified ADL I would be fine with it - as long as the ork player gave me the benefit of the doubt concerning cover saves for any of MY units which tried to get a cover save for it - i.e. Leman Russ tanks and full sized infantry.

The only time you might get called out is in a tourney, but that's what a TO is for.

I have this issue with the occasional crouching guardsman. In a tourney I'd make sure that all my minis were standing properly, but in scratch games or LGS campaigns noone seems to mind.

Most people that tell you they wouldn't let you use a converted model over a message board wouldn't dare make such a fuss if they were across the table from you at a hobby shop, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Also, while a fairly common response is "It's fine in a pickup game, but wouldn't fly at a tournament", I've yet to meet a TO that isn't a fan of the modeling aspects of the hobby. They run events and are just as interested in seeing a variety of cool models brought by the players as anyone else.

 Oaka wrote:
Most people that tell you they wouldn't let you use a converted model over a message board wouldn't dare make such a fuss if they were across the table from you at a hobby shop, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Also, while a fairly common response is "It's fine in a pickup game, but wouldn't fly at a tournament", I've yet to meet a TO that isn't a fan of the modeling aspects of the hobby. They run events and are just as interested in seeing a variety of cool models brought by the players as anyone else.

Cool models are one thing.
Cool models that change inherent characteristics of the model they're "replacing" are another.

And yes, I'd object at the table and bring it up to the TO.

stripeydave wrote:
I'd model it how I like. If anyone objects, I'd either drop the ADL (if they were nice about it) or not play 'em (if they weren't). If I were playing against a modified ADL I would be fine with it - as long as the ork player gave me the benefit of the doubt concerning cover saves for any of MY units which tried to get a cover save for it - i.e. Leman Russ tanks and full sized infantry.

The only time you might get called out is in a tourney, but that's what a TO is for.

I have this issue with the occasional crouching guardsman. In a tourney I'd make sure that all my minis were standing properly, but in scratch games or LGS campaigns noone seems to mind.

The difference, is there are valid Guard models who can stand. The entire Grot line can't stand that tall, and there are explicit advantages to having grots as they can give 1-way cover unlike most other units out there. So to have the advantage of 1-way cover, you lose the advantage of ADL see-over.

 Oaka wrote:
Most people that tell you they wouldn't let you use a converted model over a message board wouldn't dare make such a fuss if they were across the table from you at a hobby shop, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Also, while a fairly common response is "It's fine in a pickup game, but wouldn't fly at a tournament", I've yet to meet a TO that isn't a fan of the modeling aspects of the hobby. They run events and are just as interested in seeing a variety of cool models brought by the players as anyone else.

Actually most TOs I know, myself included, tend to encourage modelling but also acknowledge that cool conversions shouldnt then impact play unfairly. So you would simply use your cool line as a cool line, that provides cover as a normal ADL. After all, it isnt fair to gain an unpaid for advantage, surely? What about a kneeling wraithlord? Or cool "converted" ground up genestealers that look like theyre emerging out of the ground?

The way I see it;

Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some; add a few girders, debris, drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

Conversions are widely accepted and encoraged, so long as you don't change the profile dimensions there is no problem.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move, so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls, if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

 dwez wrote:
I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

You mean you would be surprised if people followed the rules. True Line of Sight is a rule after all...

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move,

The fluff says this is true.

so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls

Not according to the rules of the game they can not.

if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

In theory that is all well and good, but it does not gel with the actual rules of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

DeathReaper wrote:

 dwez wrote:
I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

You mean you would be surprised if people followed the rules. True Line of Sight is a rule after all...

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move,

The fluff says this is true.

so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls

Not according to the rules of the game they can not.

if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

In theory that is all well and good, but it does not gel with the actual rules of the game.

You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

Drilling holes to be able to see through it is pretty much the definition of modeling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

Drilling holes to be able to see through it is pretty much the definition of modeling for advantage.

Exactly this. Creating holes in something that does not have them, just so your short models can fire their weapons when they were not able to before is the definition of modeling for advantage.

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

Again Rig hits it right on the head. Why is playing by the rules bad?

And I play about once a week and my opponents and myself always have a good time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

Again Rig hits it right on the head. Why is playing by the rules bad?

And I play about once a week and my opponents and myself always have a good time.

QFT... Converting models is fine. Converting models to change how they interact with the rules, if you were doing it for 'making a cool model' then why would you object to playing as if it was the appropriate model?

I play Orks and have tons of conversions, and whenever a conversion conflicts with the rules... I follow the rules and tell my opponent 'I will play as if it was the appropriate model' and then they are ok with it.

Following the rules is not being TFG. Wanting to not gain undeserved advantage is good sportsmanship.

I suppose then, my quesiton is thus:

What if the OP were to create his own scratch-built terrain, that looks like a trench, and was just large enough for his Grots? How would that be any different?

Let's even take it a step further: what if his board had a bunch of, say, tree stumps strewn about it. And the OP places the ADL just in front of some of those tree stumps, such that Grots can be placed on the stumps and thus see over the wall? Is that modelling for advantage? The tree stumps are not part of the ADL. Would you call that "placement for advantage", then?

Beyond that, what if the OP modelled his Grots such that they were all standing on each other's shoulders? Would that constitute modelling for advantage? Look at it in a vacuum; before the ADL existed, would you have claimed it was MFA?

Exactly this. Creating holes in something that does not have them, just so your short models can fire their weapons when they were not able to before is the definition of modeling for advantage.

I am not sure what ADLs that you are using but my ADL has firing slits in it, it isn't like the model is not intended to have viewing slits to see/fire from.

Making a comparison, I can model all of a Bastion's heavy bolters on one face if I choose to do so even though the Citadel building kit instructions indicate otherwise. Why can I do this? Well the Bastion has four heavy bolters and does not state in its rules that they must be placed each on a separate face even though the building kit instructions demonstrate otherwise. Now apply this to the ADL. I have a model that has viewing/firing slits on it, but the rules do not restrict me to where those must be located at. I could in fact cover the stock model slits and drill new ones if I am so inclined.

I have done nothing to change the physical profile of the model which is in fact the premise behind MFA.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I suppose then, my quesiton is thus:

What if the OP were to create his own scratch-built terrain, that looks like a trench, and was just large enough for his Grots? How would that be any different?

ADL is not a trench, so you couldn't use a trench as an ADL any more than you could use a hill, a ruin or a crater. Now if the table had trenches on it, you would be fine to use the terrain as terrain.

Let's even take it a step further: what if his board had a bunch of, say, tree stumps strewn about it. And the OP places the ADL just in front of some of those tree stumps, such that Grots can be placed on the stumps and thus see over the wall? Is that modelling for advantage? The tree stumps are not part of the ADL. Would you call that "placement for advantage", then?

If there was terrain on the table, and there happened through legal placement of terrain happened to be a piece of terrain with stumps which happened to legally end up in your deployment zone and your opponent chose the site of the table opposite from it, and you can legally place your ADL in front of the stumps to see over, then you can do that.

That is all a pretty big IF, and to pull off may require house rules or flat out cheating in other terrain placement parts of the ruleset.

Beyond that, what if the OP modelled his Grots such that they were all standing on each other's shoulders? Would that constitute modelling for advantage? Look at it in a vacuum; before the ADL existed, would you have claimed it was MFA?

If you were doing it for fun, then Rule of Cool applies. If you are doing it to gain higher LOS vantage point, it is MFA and is no different than crouching Wraithlord or underground Genestealers to hide behind ripper swarms. Not cool for tourney, or casual play as casual play shouldn't mean 'everyone cheats or exploits their opponents being nice'.

Modifying your grots to be taller or the ADL to be shorter or see through is like the guy who grinds up genestealers in a blender and glues them to the base as a pile of plastic rubble so they can have LOS blocked to them by ripper swarms.

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY

And this one is good... (when you Sneaky, It wins you games)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUxjS-wOxNY

This is what MFA is tantamount to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing allows you to put all the bastion bolters on the same side or move the slits. Doing so means the game ends.

Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

Because that would be ridiculous, and still wouldn't allow models to see through them unless they are lying down?

 insaniak wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

Because that would be ridiculous, and still wouldn't allow models to see through them unless they are lying down?

And when did we add rules for allowing models to sit however we wanted on the table? Can my Landraider stand on end to block LOS to flyers? Can my Flyer be upside down so all you can see is the base? Can I lay all my models on their sides to hide behind infantry?

This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

Wait..
The OP asked if it was MFA, which it clearly was, and because people dislikes the answer we are resorting to trolling for the last couple of pages?

"Hi, I am changing the model so I gain an advantage! Is that modelling for advantage?"
-YES!

*end thread*

nkelsch wrote:This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

No, I'd say my response was perfectly reasonable considering the hard line that's been taken towards throwing Rule of Cool out the window. My entire point is that there is not so distinct a difference between modelling for advantage, and personalizing something.

 azazel the cat wrote:

nkelsch wrote:This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

No, I'd say my response was perfectly reasonable considering the hard line that's been taken towards throwing Rule of Cool out the window. My entire point is that there is not so distinct a difference between modelling for advantage, and personalizing something.

Rule of cool doesn't allow in-game advantages. Rule of Cool allows non-standard models to be used, as long as people don't try to take advantage from them.

Rule of Cool never justifies in-game advantage, just leniency in allowing the model on the tabletop as long as the person is willing not to exploit the models for gain.

A custom Orky ADL is fine. A custom orky ADL which is shorter so models who cannot see over it the ability to see over it is not fine.

A Grot on a cinematic oilcan is fine. A Grot on a Cinematic oilcan where you try to give the grot higher LOS than he can normally see is not fine.

If you are modeling for advantage, you fail at rule of cool. To succeed at rule of cool, you must be willing to play it as if it was the stock model and not be doing the modeling for any advantage.

Why is it throwing rule of cool out the window?
Its just saying: model for prettiness all you want, but you play the model as stock so you dont get an advantage

Given the express intention of the OP is to model purely for advantage "rule of cool" has already been thrown out.

They arent doing it for ANY REASON but for advantage.

Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

I'd play against it (Casual s). Not our fault all four (The selection is endless!) point bought Forts. are modelled based on tall humanoids.

In a non tournament environment its just nice to reach a compromise - for example if your lowering it - cut down the length by a proportional amount.

Seriously though they should release a variety of models for these things, more options and give some love to the none marine armies. Pretty sure all races are able to construct defensive lines, of an appropriate height

blood lance wrote:
Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

They are interacting with it, by getting g'teed LOS blocking terrain

blood lance wrote:
Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

Why should the ADL function differently to any other terrain piece in that regard?

What you've just described is the definition of modeling for advantage.

That being said, almost every single person I have played 40k with (even at GT's) generally follows "the rule of cool". So if your converted ADL looks awesome, generally people will not care. It is however your responsibility as an honest player to point out to your opponents that your conversion differs from the normal model and as such would technically disallow your Gretchin to shoot. If they don't care or it's just a friendly game 9 out of 10 times they will let you do it.

I would allow this to be used against me in any game outside of a large torment. (Though I would call you on it if you didn't tell me before the game started)

I this thread supposed to be going somewhere, or is it just another one designed to take MFA arguments to the ludicrous extremes?

There are a good deal of people on here who must be a real bear to play against, if they are as nit-picky as they come across online..

Pretty soon anything other than a stock pose will be damned as Modeling for Advantage, because someone somehow finds a way that the pose someone created wold benefit them in a certain situation. My Dire Avenger is holding his gun upright at his side? Obviously must be so I can hide him around corners, when the standard pose would have a hand and gun sticking out from behind the cover to be shot at.

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

 Nem wrote:

Seriously though they should release a variety of models for these things, more options and give some love to the none marine armies. Pretty sure all races are able to construct defensive lines, of an appropriate height

In the Ork case, "appropriate" would depend on whether you're talking about Squigs, Gretchin, Boyz, or Nobs. All these different species of fungi need their own heights of walls. And at this point in the game, you can't take an ADL that has several sections of varying heights. You get one choice, that's about human-sized.

Ratlings cannot see over the ADL, yet they are humanoid. For some reason, the Imperial Guard cannot construct defensive walls of an appropriate height for their own snipers! Gretchin aren't the only ones to suffer from the height of a particular piece of terrain.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

Because those short models can stand in open terrain, give taller models behind them Cover, while allowing the taller models to shoot over them for no cover. That is drastically different that a majority of other infantry in the game.

If a model is going to have such a huge advantage, then they are going to equally have to have disadvantages.

Grots screening boys with 1-way cover is a huge advantage. And it comes from being short. The same way we can hide grots behind stuff for zero LOS. You can't have it both ways.

And remember, just because you can 'see over' doesn't mean your opponent won't get cover. If a grot is exactly eye level with the top of the wall, then the opponent will have 50% cover as the grot won't be able to see the lower half of his opponent. A Infantryman has to be a good deal taller than the wall in order for his cone of vision to have no obstructions... so even if you were to MFA so the grots could see, there is a good chance that they would be forced to give anyone they shoot at a 4+ cover save.

Drilling small holes in a wall doesn't give unobstructed view, and while people like to play house rules that hugging the ADL gives one-way cover, the rules don't actually work that way.

For this to work takes multiple layers of ignoring the rules.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I this thread supposed to be going somewhere, or is it just another one designed to take MFA arguments to the ludicrous extremes?

There are a good deal of people on here who must be a real bear to play against, if they are as nit-picky as they come across online..

Pretty soon anything other than a stock pose will be damned as Modeling for Advantage, because someone somehow finds a way that the pose someone created wold benefit them in a certain situation. My Dire Avenger is holding his gun upright at his side? Obviously must be so I can hide him around corners, when the standard pose would have a hand and gun sticking out from behind the cover to be shot at.

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

I sympathize with this, because my entire army is currently count-as, so doesn't have any of the proper dimensions of the stock models. But I made the effort to make sure all my count-as models have the correct base size. I also converted my own ADL, but not to gain any advantage, I just didn't want my Xenos using Imperial technology. I didn't measure the official ADL to make my version, because I didn't buy it.

I know this is a RAW forum, but there should also be a discussion about reasonable allowance. We all know a lower ADL for Grots is modeling for advantage, but whether that is legal or not, or allowed or not, is what has kept this discussion going. Every RAW discussion on this site ends up being about 50/50, but all the RAW players post on it so it's not a fair assessment of what is actually out there in the gaming world. They're usually tournament-goers, and they like to quote RAW, while conveniently forgetting that a tournament game that is called in the third or fourth turn due to time restrictions is actually a breach of the game rules.

That's why I said make your converted Ork defense line. If you're not trying to win any major tournament, there is a very high chance that no one will care. It's not 100%, however, but, then again, it's not a 100% chance that you will walk out your front door tomorrow and not get kicked in the bollocks by David Bowie.

I and my friends have never had an issue with our ADLs... This kind of behavior preventing certain models from even using said terrain as what it was supposed to be used for (A simply cover save if you were behind it) Disturbs me and makes me rather sad a thread like this went on for 6 pages :(


Honestly... It's a DL... You shoot through it and things get shot through it in return... Thats like saying if you have custom forests and bushes on your board, 1 leaf, 1 twig specifically blocking 1 models eyesight from his target completely negates that models ability to fire at all...

GoliothOnline wrote:
I and my friends have never had an issue with our ADLs... This kind of behavior preventing certain models from even using said terrain as what it was supposed to be used for (A simply cover save if you were behind it) Disturbs me and makes me rather sad a thread like this went on for 6 pages :(


Honestly... It's a DL... You shoot through it and things get shot through it in return... Thats like saying if you have custom forests and bushes on your board, 1 leaf, 1 twig specifically blocking 1 models eyesight from his target completely negates that models ability to fire at all...

Actually, you shoot 'over' it. It is not area terrain. It uses true LOS like any other form of terrain. And in your tree example, if the tree blocks his entire sight, he can;t fire, if he can see even a little bit, he can fire, but his opponent gets Cover.

What you want is for models to see throught errain with no LOS, shoot opponents, and those opponents get ZERO cover. That is not supported by the rules at all. ADL is not one way cover.

Because those short models can stand in open terrain, give taller models behind them Cover, while allowing the taller models to shoot over them for no cover. That is drastically different that a majority of other infantry in the game.

If a model is going to have such a huge advantage, then they are going to equally have to have disadvantages.

Grots screening boys with 1-way cover is a huge advantage. And it comes from being short. The same way we can hide grots behind stuff for zero LOS. You can't have it both ways.

And remember, just because you can 'see over' doesn't mean your opponent won't get cover. If a grot is exactly eye level with the top of the wall, then the opponent will have 50% cover as the grot won't be able to see the lower half of his opponent. A Infantryman has to be a good deal taller than the wall in order for his cone of vision to have no obstructions... so even if you were to MFA so the grots could see, there is a good chance that they would be forced to give anyone they shoot at a 4+ cover save.

Ok....but now explain why prone Vostroyan weapons teams, kneeling Cadian/Catachan weapons teams, kneeling individual figures including Imperial Guard, Space Marines, and metal IG Snipers, lying-prone Catachan sniper models (versus normal standing Sniper models available in the same package), Ratling Snipers, etc, all are unable to use an ADL if people want to lawyer-up about how "true line of sight" stops them from seeing over the stock ADL model. When designing the ADL, did GW by design seriously intend to specifically stop such units from firing from behind it?

I'm guessing "no".

"True line of sight" is absolutely stupid because it makes threads like this possible.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Ok....but now explain why prone Vostroyan weapons teams, kneeling Cadian/Catachan weapons teams, kneeling individual figures including Imperial Guard, Space Marines, and metal IG Snipers, lying-prone Catachan sniper models (versus normal standing Sniper models available in the same package), Ratling Snipers, etc, all are unable to use an ADL if people want to lawyer-up about how "true line of sight" stops them from seeing over the stock ADL model.

There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?

When designing the ADL, did GW by design seriously intend to specifically stop such units from firing from behind it?

Whether or not they intended to, they made it the size they did.

You could as easily ask if they intended to block the LOS from these models when placed on the roof of their imperial city terrain. But ultimately, what they intended is largely irrelevant. We have a set of rules that uses LOS from the actual model as placed on the table, and grants cover or blocks LOS based on the actual dimensions of the terrain in the way.

So yes, it will make a difference whether you are using a model that is standing or kneeling. This isn't some new thing with 6th edition... it's the way LOS has worked in 40K since Rogue Trader.

There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?

So then without being guilty of Modeling for Advantage, no one can use Imperial Guard Vostroyan or some other Heavy weapons teams from behind an Aegis Defense Line.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?

So then without being guilty of Modeling for Advantage, no one can use Imperial Guard Heavy weapons teams from behind an Aegis Defense Line.

Well there are some that can be used, as some have one guy standing erect next to the dude manning the gun.

But yes some of them will not be able to see over the ADL, or similarly any terrain that is taller than the actual model used in the HWT.

Some HWT's will not be able to draw Line of Sight over the ADL, and some will.

It is really an issue with GW's True Line of Sight system coupled with the fact that sometimes models that represent the same thing on the table are modeled in a drastically different manner.

Well there are some that can be used, as some have one guy standing erect next to the dude manning the gun.

But the gunner and the barrel of the gun won't clear the terrain. A kneeling Cadian missile launcher cannot fire, but an old metal Tallarn or Mordian Guard can. Though they represent the same thing on the table.

It is really an issue with GW's True Line of Sight system coupled with the fact that sometimes models that represent the same thing on the table are modeled in a drastically different manner.

Exactly. Their system seems almost designed to provoke arguments, with the way they support it with their own models. It's dumb.

Why don't you just put holes in the line, like where the grots would stick their gun barrels through. That would coun't as probably being able to see the grots, if the holes are large enough, and they can shoot. Anyways, if you want to shorten the line, me and most gamers I know wouldn't care at all about it. (unless its a big tourney) They are GROTS after all people. Thats actually more of a disadvantage, because now bigger troopers are exposed and only the little squishy ones are protected (if you do even put any big troops inside the line). But in a big GW tourney, yes, this may be modeling for advantage. But when you think about it, that is usually only in large or fancy tournaments that they have a problem with it, and in those same type of tourneys, they will expect you to have an actualy adl (orkified of course) but still the GW model. So unless you're going to a tourney where you know the rules will be strict, why even bother?

Why don't you just put holes in the line, like where the grots would stick their gun barrels through.

Already been shot down as MFA and "claimed" to be illegal in the rules.

I think it would be funny to have an Ork ADL with a special lower tier of firing slits for Grots below the ones for the "real" Boyz. Then paint slogans like "Shoot here Humiez" with arrows pointing to the "Grot slits".

I thought MFA was frowned upon. Does it say MFA is illegal in the rules?

I think the thing here is this:
OP desires to make a scratch built ADS. Is he allowed to make it as he wants? YES, no one told Van Gogh how to paint, and look where he is at?

What about those Scratch-built tau bastions or scratch-built ruins or scratch-built anythings? Are those illegal too?

It is like saying: "Oh you are trying to make a hobbit house. Oh no! it has shorter windows. YOU ARE A TOOL FOR MAKING YOUR OWN STUFF."

I believe that you can make your own custom ADS line how you like. I mean, it is not like you are making a fifty-foot tall one so you can hide a freakin reaver titan, it just so happens that your pile of junk is not as tall as its cousin. What if this OP is totally poor and cannot afford enough bits to build his walls to be exactly the height of the box-set ones? Are you going to penalize him for making it with what he had? (I doubt this guy cannot afford it, but I am just throwing in the sort of ordeal for though)

Ranting having been finished, I think the excuse of "Game flaw" is totally invalid, but the whole idea that it is scratch-built and a minor little tweak-thing is perfectly fine to me. I would let you use it.

I think most would. Some just seem to be caught up on the rules issues. Not that their not important but I think sometimes the fluff needs to be considered. It doesn't give measurements for exact heights of the weapon slots so you should be able to put them where you want for what ever race your playing. Rem we got into 40k for the cool sci-fi battles. The different aegis lines help that sense of realism - it doesn't hurt it.

I especially like the race specific made items that fit the fluff instead of every race using imperial terrain.

There is only specifications in the ADL rules for lengths of the sections, not height.

Alternatively you could always model a firing step into it or its base; if you base it.

But the difference is Eldar, Tau, Imperial guard, Orks, Nids, space marines, chaos, all have a majority of their stock models can see over the stock ADL. So even if you do a custom ADL, you are not gaining an advantage.

If you made a custom ADl which matched the dimensions of the stock, but themed it up, your grots would STILL have zero LOS, or at best, be unable to see totally over the wall which means people they shoot at get cover.

Why should people get advantages not paid for by points and require modifications of models in order to make the rules to work differently?

This is no different than grinding up Genestealers and gluing model gravel to a base and saying 'it is a genestealer model technically, No LOS to my models!'

All these people who want to cheat are the ones caught up in the rules... if you really wanted to model for fun, then you would have no problem following the rules and not getting an undeserved advantage by exploiting a conversion. If you are trying to be 'why you being so strict' then why you trying to exploit the rules? Accept grots are too short to use an ADL in 100% of circumstances and try a different tactic.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
But the gunner and the barrel of the gun won't clear the terrain. A kneeling Cadian missile launcher cannot fire, but an old metal Tallarn or Mordian Guard can. Though they represent the same thing on the table.

That's correct.

Although where the barrel of the gun is makes no difference. You only need LOS from the firer, not the gun.

Exactly. Their system seems almost designed to provoke arguments, with the way they support it with their own models. It's dumb.

It solves more arguments that it creates, because you just use the model exactly as it sits on the table. SO both players can easily get down and see what is what.

You get more arguments when you start abstracting the process and pretending that the model is in a different position to where it actually is, since that requires both players to agree on an imaginary position.

There was a rule back in 5th ed, don't know if it's still around since I avoid gaming in tournaments (so that I can model the way I like) with my 'friendly' converted army.. But it was something like

"If said conversion causes problems with cover/ LOS remove model and place an original GW model of the unit in the same position" which is hilarious since we're still waiting (years and years) for some pretty major models.
*cough*SPOREPOD*cough*

 Spazamataz wrote:
There was a rule back in 5th ed, don't know if it's still around since I avoid gaming in tournaments (so that I can model the way I like) with my 'friendly' converted army.. But it was something like

"If said conversion causes problems with cover/ LOS remove model and place an original GW model of the unit in the same position" which is hilarious since we're still waiting (years and years) for some pretty major models.
*cough*SPOREPOD*cough*

That may have been a tournie rule, but was never in the rulebook.

I've seen similar rules in tournament packages from time to time. There was a local one just recently that imposed a rule that players who wanted to use conversions or non-standard models should have the original model on hand in case there were any issues. Not really a fan, to be honest... all that enforcing that sort of rule does is discourage people from using conversions. Or entering in the first place.

Unless someone is really taking the micky, it's easier to just use the model you have, as is, and get on with the game. We have so many examples of models significantly changing size (Eldar Avatar, Trukks, Battlewagons, Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, pretty much every Tyranid creature ever made, Daemon Princes, Mega-armoured Orks, Sentinels... it goes on) or having different LOS profiles depending on how they are assembled that it does seem like GW aren't overly concerned with the differences in the game that such things create.

nkelsch wrote:
But the difference is Eldar, Tau, Imperial guard, Orks, Nids, space marines, chaos, all have a majority of their stock models can see over the stock ADL. So even if you do a custom ADL, you are not gaining an advantage.

If you made a custom ADl which matched the dimensions of the stock, but themed it up, your grots would STILL have zero LOS, or at best, be unable to see totally over the wall which means people they shoot at get cover.

Why should people get advantages not paid for by points and require modifications of models in order to make the rules to work differently?

This is no different than grinding up Genestealers and gluing model gravel to a base and saying 'it is a genestealer model technically, No LOS to my models!'

All these people who want to cheat are the ones caught up in the rules... if you really wanted to model for fun, then you would have no problem following the rules and not getting an undeserved advantage by exploiting a conversion. If you are trying to be 'why you being so strict' then why you trying to exploit the rules? Accept grots are too short to use an ADL in 100% of circumstances and try a different tactic.

But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step. Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm). We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison. A Genestealer must be roughly man sized (28mm, give or take a few mm), not 3 millimeters off the base. Let alone must be clearly identifiable as a Genestealer.

 Bausk wrote:
But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step.

The dimsensions for the ADL are defined by the model. Which doesn't have a fire step.

Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm).

Neither of those things are true.

Reducing the height of the ADL allows models to see over it that otherwise couldn't, and reduces the amount of cover it provides.

A stooping model will be less able to see over obstacles than an identical model standing on a rock, and will be easier to hide behind obstructions.

We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison.

On a model that is 30mm tall, differences of millimetres can be significant...

@Bausk:
Although I agree with you that you should be able to modify the height of an ADL and that this should not be considered MFA; I disagree with the reasoning.

There are almost no written dimensions on any models with regards to height. I believe the building rules state something like 3" for various floors, but that's about it. Taking your line of reasoning, cutting the legs off of a crisis suit would be acceptable...

My reasoning that it's not MFA is simply because it gives a disadvantage as well. The situation is that although the grots can shoot, they can also be shot. It goes both ways.

By the same token I have no issues with modeling units on top of scenic bases (like rocks). Yes, they can now see over more things, but they can also be seen (eg: shot) by more enemy units. A couple weeks ago someone asked if it would be MFA to lay a tau suit it's side and glue it to the base. I said go for it because quite frankly although it would be easier to hide it, it would also be unable to shoot most things on the battlefield. I've also seen someone claiming kneeling Firewarriors was MFA because they could "see under tanks".. I own a lot of tanks, kneeling models would be hard pressed to see under any of them; but would still prevent them from seeing a lot more.

I think a lot of people forget that changing *anything* on a model typically has as many disadvantages as advantages; this is part of what's great about measuring from the eyes. Whether that is using a larger base size (40 vs 25mm), different heights or whatever.

The last point I want to make is simply that MFA does not exist in the rule book; which, ostensibly, is what this forum is about. There isn't a RAW issue with it. Tournament wise though is a radically different thing.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step.

The dimsensions for the ADL are defined by the model. Which doesn't have a fire step.

Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm).

Neither of those things are true.

Reducing the height of the ADL allows models to see over it that otherwise couldn't, and reduces the amount of cover it provides.

A stooping model will be less able to see over obstacles than an identical model standing on a rock, and will be easier to hide behind obstructions.

We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison.

On a model that is 30mm tall, differences of millimetres can be significant...

Models can be altered and customized or even built from scratch. You could add armoured plates that increase the height in sections, spikes or even cut it up and glue it back together all jagged with bits bolted together. It changes nothing about the models rules work. The dimensions are subjective beyond the length of the sections.

Both are true, game mechanic wise. Assume they are both space marines, both have the same stats, weapons etc The only difference is LoS which is based on the model, which is typically a few millimeters even without conversions. The point is they are the same regardless of modeling, just as altering or scratch building a ADL would be the same.

+2mm is pretty much a standard of most decorative basing using slate. Arguing +2mm to be significant by comparison to -25mm is a bit silly. But yes I'd agree if we were talking +4-5mm or more. But then again there are even some GW models like some jump packers that have that much added due to dramatic posing.

The ruleset is permissive. The rulebook doesn't allow you to modify your models... By your definition, the gene stealer ground up into gravel and glued to a base is "legal"

We are only given permission to use official citadel models.

A custom ADL or modified grot doesn't fall under that and requires opponents permission. If you are doing it for advantage, the game never happens.

And this " every advantage has a disadvantage" is a boldface dishonest lie. Not only are not every change in a model have equal advantages or disadvantages, but us being smart primates explicitly know how to maximize advantages and mitigate disadvantages. Your grots are taller and can be seen? You really going to deploy them in such a way where you will find yourself going " oh man, I got hit by a disadvantage, normally they could hide"

No, you are going to deploy them in such a way you have 100% advantage and none of the drawbacks. That is why you are doing it.

And any model shooting through a slit on an ADL will give cover to the target unit. So arguing grots can see the slits and somehow get one way cover doesn't work.

You have to ignore the ADL rules, cover rules, Los rules and modify your models for it to work. Where I come from, that is called cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:


Models can be altered and customized or even built from scratch.

page number for that rule please. Permissive ruleset.

Otherwise, gravel gene stealer is legal in all situations which is absurd.

nkelsch wrote:
The ruleset is permissive. The rulebook doesn't allow you to modify your models... By your definition, the gene stealer ground up into gravel and glued to a base is "legal"

We aren't given permission to glue them together. So I guess just throwing model parts on top of a base is the way to go. Hope they don't fall off... unless you have a page number and paragraph for the rule telling you how to assemble them?

nkelsch wrote:

We are only given permission to use official citadel models.

This would screw with a TON of armies as there simply AREN'T official models for lots of things. Making matters worse is the simple fact that there is a ton of wargear that has zero model representation or simply doesn't ship with the model in question.

nkelsch wrote:

A custom ADL or modified grot doesn't fall under that and requires opponents permission. If you are doing it for advantage, the game never happens.

Depends on who you are playing

nkelsch wrote:

And this " every advantage has a disadvantage" is a boldface dishonest lie. Not only are not every change in a model have equal advantages or disadvantages, but us being smart primates explicitly know how to maximize advantages and mitigate disadvantages. Your grots are taller and can be seen? You really going to deploy them in such a way where you will find yourself going " oh man, I got hit by a disadvantage, normally they could hide"

No, you are going to deploy them in such a way you have 100% advantage and none of the drawbacks. That is why you are doing it.

And any model shooting through a slit on an ADL will give cover to the target unit. So arguing grots can see the slits and somehow get one way cover doesn't work.

You have to ignore the ADL rules, cover rules, Los rules and modify your models for it to work. Where I come from, that is called cheating.

You sir need to calm down and read the rules for YMDC. Specifically #5 is important.

Regarding the "slit" granting cover to the target, please cite pg and paragraph. By all means ignore the grots under discussion as there are other models that can see through those slits and not be seen without changing the height of the ADL or letting the model stand on something.

Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%.

Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed.

The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover.

Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover?

Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL.

nkelsch wrote:
Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%.

Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed.

The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover.

Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover?

Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL.

I don't need to cite anything regarding "one way cover". Cover is determined by 25% or more of the target model being blocked from True LOS as determined from the firers eyeballs.

Models that, as shipped, could see through the slit (found in 30 seconds):
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070138
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440176a&prodId=prod1060078

You'll note that each of those kits have models kneeling.

Words like "most" and "large chance" do not preclude the ability of having an unobstructed view from one point but not another. Quite frankly this is no different than if the firing model is shooting from a window in a ruin (or other terrain) which obscures 25% or more of it while providing a clear target. This is a very common occurrence in games and quite frankly one of the reasons why you put models in cover to begin with. That said, Orks and "stock marines" aren't the only models in the game.

I still totally disagree. When they don't give you a model for your race I have no problem w/ a custom wall that Grots or who ever would be using. I think it goes against the spirit and essence or 40k to make everyone use the same aegis. Peoples custom models are the one thing I love about this game.

The ground up genestealer is just silly. if his torso was in that many pieces he'd be dead. If you want to field one of your models already dead go ahead but he is dead and now scenery.

I have seen Mawlocs bursting thru the ground at half the regular height of a regular Mawloc, Waith Lords Kneeling, and a whole group of Tau modeled in a prone firing position.

The only one I would disallow is the mawloc b/c you didn't use the whole model only pieces. MFA is it written into the rules somewhere? I only see you have to use an official games workshop model. Couldn't I use a whole army of this Genestealer and it be legal?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/59925-Burst%2C%20Genestealer%2C%20Space%20Hulk.html

That seems cheesy but within the rules.

______________________________________________

This below makes the game for me it doesn't ruin it.

http://spyrle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eldar-aegis-defense-line-protoype-is-up.html

or the orc one:

http://forums.bluegrassgamers.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6783

Grots could use that one and it looks like they would. You would tell someone no even tho it looks orcy and even looks like something the Grots built?

clively wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%.

Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed.

The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover.

Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover?

Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL.

I don't need to cite anything regarding "one way cover". Cover is determined by 25% or more of the target model being blocked from True LOS as determined from the firers eyeballs.

Models that, as shipped, could see through the slit (found in 30 seconds):
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070138
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440176a&prodId=prod1060078

You'll note that each of those kits have models kneeling.

Words like "most" and "large chance" do not preclude the ability of having an unobstructed view from one point but not another. Quite frankly this is no different than if the firing model is shooting from a window in a ruin (or other terrain) which obscures 25% or more of it while providing a clear target. This is a very common occurrence in games and quite frankly one of the reasons why you put models in cover to begin with. That said, Orks and "stock marines" aren't the only models in the game.

see through the slit and see 75% of the target model are not the same. Basic geometry shows that models looking through the slit, farther back they are, the more obstructed their view is. Taller or shorter models have more obstructed views. Unless the model is leaning forward where the eyes are touching the wall and exactly eye height to the slit, they will have obstructed views.

If you are firing through the slit, your models won't have an unobstructed view the same way looking over the ADL does.

But I guess you could battle damage your ADL so all the slits have the top blown off so they become easy to see over?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:


http://forums.bluegrassgamers.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6783

Grots could use that one and it looks like they would. You would tell someone no even tho it looks orcy and even looks like something the Grots built?

Grots can build an ADL... They just can't see over it.

Provide the page which allows you to make a custom ADL or modified grot. The rules don't allow it, it requires opponents permission for the game to take place, and people who MFA, the game doesn't take place.

Doesn't the fortification section in the rulebook cover the issue of them all being imperial?

@nkelsch:
So, you are agreeing that there is not a RAW rule declaring that a target unit always receives a cover save due to the firer model looking through the slits?
Even using geometry, you would have to agree that there are lines of sight and distances involved that would allow a target model to be 100% in view while the firer is looking through that slit. Basic geometry as you say. If you disagree, please cite.

You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

You should also agree there is zero rule in the little rule book governing how a model is assembled, or even that it is. All we have is a statement to put the model on the base it comes with. If you disagree, please cite pg. Which means that we only have a few sources to go by, none of which are RAW. The model instructions, if it has them the vast majority don't, and the Modeling section in the full BRB and codexes showing how numerous models are put together. All of which have been described by a majority of people as "not rules".

Next up, there is zero statement in the little rule book covering the words "modeling for advantage" or any such nonsense. Again, please cite any disagreement. Whereas we have considerable support for modeling in the modeling section of the BRB. Yes, those are not "rules" but it's the closest we'll ever come as they are in the official full rule book itself. Incidentally, the entire concept of there only being one way to assemble a model is a small step away from stating there is only one way for any particular model to be painted; which I hope no one here would advocate.

What are we left with?

We know numerous tournaments have the concept of MFA, which is not RAW, and tournament rules or HIWPI have no bearing here. From this alone the OP's question should simply not be directed to this forum but rather to the play group/tournament (s)he wishes to attend.

Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL as a back "wall" (ie: out of the way). In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked.

RAW satisfied as well as can be, we can look at RAI.

We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak.

With regards to "providing a page that allows you to make a custom ADL or grot" the retort is simply for you to provide a page in the RULES section that shows how these models are supposed to be assembled. Getting to the "permissive" statement, you can't. So we have to go further, which means the modeling section, which means we see custom miniatures on a lot of pages. Going even further with intent we have GW repeatedly stating it's about the hobby and show casing conversions both in game and in their modeling sections of the white dwarf. For all intents and purposes this "hobby" is about modeling first, gaming second: per GW.

HIWPI should be obvious.

I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.

 BryllCream wrote:
I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.

I don't think anyone has said that a squad shooting from an ADL could not be shot in return. If I can see you to shoot then it should be obvious that you can see the relevant part of my body (head in this case) to return fire.

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

Next up, there is zero statement in the little rule book covering the words "modeling for advantage" or any such nonsense. Again, please cite any disagreement. Whereas we have considerable support for modeling in the modeling section of the BRB. Yes, those are not "rules" but it's the closest we'll ever come as they are in the official full rule book itself.

MFA has only ever been a player convention.

We know numerous tournaments have the concept of MFA, which is not RAW, and tournament rules or HIWPI have no bearing here. From this alone the OP's question should simply not be directed to this forum but rather to the play group/tournament (s)he wishes to attend.

That's absolutely not true. It's been covered that there are no rules relating to MFA. However this forum does allow for HYWPI discussions.

Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL out of the way. In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked.

Sure. But models behind the custom terrain don't get +2 cover save from a GTG and it won't have a nifty gun attached to it.

We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak.

Yeah, it's cool to pretend that divining intent requires the big rule book instead of the small one.
Ignoring that, no one has said that conversions are bad. But conversions that change how a model is played are bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.

I don't think anyone has said that a squad shooting from an ADL could not be shot in return. If I can see you to shoot then it should be obvious that you can see the relevant part of my body (head in this case) to return fire.

Not always true - yes, for infantry models its correct but its not true for vehicles.

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Uh, being a Citadel Miniature doesn't make it a 40K miniature... Otherwise, it would be legal to use, say, Epic Whirlwinds to make them easier to hide behind terrain...

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

Are you saying that you cannot use an existing GW model to represent that exact same model on the board because it gives you some advantage? Really? That's the model.. GW makes no representation on which box I buy one of their models from, just that I need to use a Citadel model. That genestealer is citadel per description.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL out of the way. In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked.

Sure. But models behind the custom terrain don't get +2 cover save from a GTG and it won't have a nifty gun attached to it.

If the ADL is the "back wall" of the custom terrain, you could certainly have your gun be as attached as you want. I'm even going to agree that the gun has to be touching that back wall. Of course, I could also blow your mind by gluing the ADL in a stacked position such that it only takes up about 6" of horizontal space while being around 4" deep and be a complete "back wall" as the pieces are "chained together", which is perfectly valid. Either way, I'll grant the custom terrain wouldn't get an additional cover bonus. Whether it's "purpose built" (3+) or not may be open for discussion though; I haven't seen a real definition of that yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak.

Yeah, it's cool to pretend that divining intent requires the big rule book instead of the small one.
Ignoring that, no one has said that conversions are bad. But conversions that change how a model is played are bad.

I've shown how existing models from GW standing next to the actual imperial ADL break his reasoning for not allowing it. I've covered RAW because that was the primary argument against. I think I've made a good argument tearing that up. Now we're into HYWPI and that's a whole different discussion, which could certainly be handled by a poll.

I can see both sides of this one. Honestly I think you're going to have to ask your friends and make that call with them. If they're ok with it then I'd say do it. That being said, I understand some people getting upset if you've given a unit a bonus they normally wouldn't be able to get had you used the official model. I'd let you do it and I think most friendly gamers would too, but tournament wise there's no way, and if your opponent's set against it I'd say you're going to have to be the one to give in.

 insaniak wrote:

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Uh, being a Citadel Miniature doesn't make it a 40K miniature... Otherwise, it would be legal to use, say, Epic Whirlwinds to make them easier to hide behind terrain...

RAW. Ask GW to FAQ it. If we say "40k" only then we leave out most of the Chaos Daemons models as they are from another game.

Of course, common sense should step in. The point of my entire diatribe is simply that RAW (as being argued vehemently by one side here, when they really should have been saying "HIWPI") doesn't apply; and reasonable conversions should be allowed. Including what the OP proposed: a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

clively 520034 5509767 nul wrote:RAW. Ask GW to FAQ it.

There's really no need...


Daemons are branded for both 40K and WHFB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
Of course, common sense should step in. Like it should in allowing a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

You're going to continue to get disagreement on that one.

Modelling a custom ADL so that you have an Orky one is fine. Changing the model specifically to give yourself better fire lanes from it? That's going to get people riled up.

clively wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

Are you saying that you cannot use an existing GW model to represent that exact same model on the board because it gives you some advantage? Really? That's the model.. GW makes no representation on which box I buy one of their models from, just that I need to use a Citadel model. That genestealer is citadel per description.

Sure - use it. It looks cool.
Oh, you refuse to pretend that it's a normal Genestealer size? You've lost rule of cool and are now in MFA territory. Especially if you have your entire army made from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
Of course, common sense should step in. The point of my entire diatribe is simply that RAW (as being argued vehemently by one side here, when they really should have been saying "HIWPI") doesn't apply; and reasonable conversions should be allowed. Including what the OP proposed: a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

Any miniature that has been modified to gain an in-game advantage (and not just because it looks cool) is not a "reasonable conversion" and should not be accepted.

Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA.

Complaining that an ADL that is 3mm shorter (or grots 3mm taller) is 'modelling for advantage' is ridiculous in light of all the hundreds of examples of legitimate GW models which take advantage of the rules.
I have a friend who runs a 2nd edition Hive Tyrant in his army. Why? Because it's only marginally bigger than Warriors and so gets a cover save from everything.

There are tons of kneeling/prone models which are exchangeable for non-prone versions of the same. Equipped identically. So I can build an entire Firewarrior unit of kneeling models, with an entire Firewarrior unit of standing models behind them; for the express purpose that the standing models are able to see over the kneeling ones; and this is somehow not modelling for advantage simply because I'm using the legit models?
There are even some models which the pose can be changed mid-game - say turret mounted weapons, doors which can be opened etc. How is it ok that I can turn a gun barrel mid game so that it obscures some model, but a grot on a scenic base is against the rules?

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.

@rigeld2: what defines stock models?

More to the point, according to you I can't field 5 kneeling scouts or 5 prone snipers. All of which are GW models currently purchasable from their site.

How in the world is your position justified?

rigeld2 wrote:
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

Not necessarily. Refusing to count them as different models also keeps the game a heck of a lot easier to play.

If you have an issue with the models your opponent is using, don't play them. Don't mess about pretending that models are something that they aren't.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

1-Why would he have to count them as normal for shooting purposes if they are out of LOS?
2-What about those Pathfinders with Rail Rifles or the IG snipers that are all crouched or prone? Do they have to be assumed as standing all the time? To me, that would be one confusing game.
3-Does it just have to be about advantage? Couldn't he be modelling all his Genies kneeling/Prone/Whatever because he is making an army themed around sneaky-genies infiltrating an imperial installation? Therefore "Rule of Cool" applies

I think everyone is getting so caught up in that GW made a model, that is themed for a handful of imperial armies, so therefore it is now the law. We would not be having this huge argument if Games-Workshop never made an ADS model for the Imperium, because nobody has a problem with scratch-built mycetic spores, flash gitz, looted wagons, etc. And I can think of some EVIL ways to MFA those models with a good enough cover story that allows it to follow the "rulings of cool".

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.

I do not think you would have to ask him to not use it., MCs cannot get cover from infantry anyways right?

 Da Kommizzar wrote:

3-Does it just have to be about advantage? Couldn't he be modelling all his Genies kneeling/Prone/Whatever because he is making an army themed around sneaky-genies infiltrating an imperial installation? Therefore "Rule of Cool" applies

"Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." (Rig said this).

The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Come to think of it, ADL isn't even a model, its terrain or should I say Citadel Scenery. Page 90 states that 'Many of the terrain pieces in the Citadel Scenery range have rules that apply to them'. Also page 90 implies that the BRB will most likely have rules to cover any other scenery in our collection. Also there are no rules that directly deal with how a model is modeled; aside from basing on page 3 and LoS on page 8. Of those two we only need to: 1) Ensure the model represented is on the right base if possible 2) if the model is being targeted only is being seen to its main body (head, torso, arms and/or legs).

Modeling isn't a part of the rules for a reason; it doesn't need to be. There nothing to say old mate can't have his "gravelstealer", provided we can clearly see a main body in those ground up bits. Sure I doubt anyone would seriously play against the Bit-i-nids army, but if that's how he wants his model then we can't stop him. If someone wanted to MFA their whole army to be able to be 25% covered by an ADL and have LoS, nothings stopping them. Its not against the rules, but again this is likely to result in less people willing to play against them.

As stated MFA, or rather its interpretation, is a convention and not a rule. Its subjective and very grey. I personally like making models in all different ways. I like to keep to the general size of the model I'm representing though, for an example I use crouched cadian models as ratling snipers. I hate the ratling models and dont have any crouched cadian snipers anywhere else in my army, they even use a specific head to make them stand out more. The models I use are aproximatly the same size as ratlings, are unique to the rest of my army and easily identifiable as different to a standard cadian. Am I MFA or just modeling while keeping as close to the size of what I'm trying to represent?

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

OP here

Haven't read this thread since like page five, because as numerous individuals have stated, this whole argument is pretty pointless.

I'll just use the ADL as I like against opponents who are ok with it, avoid opponents who are not ok with it, and see what the TO says for any given tournament.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

So if I assume your wrong without requiring you to be wrong you're wrong? lol

Also if I use my custom made 90% GW green stuff made model with a Citadel head and weapons that counts right? lol

But again, there are no rules covering MFA or modeling other that my previous post. So bringing up what is and what is not in the BRB's permissive rule set is irrelevant. This simply becomes what is acceptable to you as far as modeling is concerned.

And to me I'm happy with anything that's clearly playable as a model that its intended to represent, case and point my 'ratlings'. I'm not going to argue with someone over a millimeter or two up or down on a every other model. If the whole army is 'short hulk stealers' then I'd say that's going a bit far and just not play that person.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
People disagreeing with you does not make them rules lawyers.

Please remember rule 1

There is no rule in the rulebook allowing you to alter the supplied citadel miniature. Basic rules. Most people accept ruloe of cool but with modelling for advantage thrown in - and this is clearly the latter.

As a TO we always have the rule that converted models are assumed to be the standard model for LOS purposes, so people can make cool models b ut without being penalised or gaining advantage from this.

On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

find it and i shall agree. until then if it is a friendly games then it can be done


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

where do you get your information the rules are designed soley for citadel miniatures? because i fail to see where it'd come from beside apparent lax in knowledge. the rules don't cover every given situation. that is where "house rules" come into effect. generally a d6 decides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
they [the games developers/writers] allow for certain level of customisation. many miniatures even citadel are MFA. how many of you are guilty of one of these following things:
1. made your own custom rules?
2. customised a miniature?

i am betting everyone [that isn't a new guy] has tried to enhance their gameplay by introducing certain house rules into the game or a different miniature ie a stand in proxy. however many could point out that although it is a legal ingame mechanic, rules do not cover the "unknown element" ie house rules. A custom model ie a champion could be MFA, however would you consider scenic bases to be modelled to advantage? no you wouldn't [as that is a legal and also a vital part of game mechanics from an aesthetic pov, as is painting your figures] from a rules pov it is only MFA if used by something else and it is considered the same thing. ie something taller. if Gw models a smaller ADL for smaller friendlies then it'd not be an issue, but because they haven't it suddenly is a major issue to be had on the old dakka

simply roll a d6:
1-3: go with it
4-6: go with the crowd on this one.

8 pages of to and froing nipped in the bud

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

That's not how game rules work. The rules define what you can do. So you need a rule saying you CAN do something, not just the lack of a rule saying you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, some players would consider scenic bases to be MFA, if they add significant height to the model.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

That's not how game rules work. The rules define what you can do. So you need a rule saying you CAN do something, not just the lack of a rule saying you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, some players would consider scenic bases to be MFA, if they add significant height to the model.

Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ. pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL
pg 2 and pg 13 of 5th edition rulebook. and to a limited extent 2nd edition page 88...currently looking through 3rd and 4th editions of 40k and i expect to find something similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
3rd has a section in the ultimate secrets of the galaxy revealed. though is loose in it's descriptions. the only rulebook it seems that excludes such is 4th edition rulebook [though it does have a small header on house rules]

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game then how come the actual designers included that as a valid and in game legal option?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

There are no official rules prohibiting MFA. Where does it say I can't have an army of the crouching smaller genestealers, all kneeling or prone guys. MFA is frowned upon by the player base.

I have 2nd Ed Smaller Hive Tyrants and I have never had anyone have an issue with them. Show me a rule where they are illegal.

Orkimedes1000 got me thinking. I just read the rules and you can make your Aegis line out of battlefield debris.

p.174 Aegis Line
Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defense lines)

p. 104 Defense Lines
Defense Lines follow the same rules as barricades and walls.

p. 104 Barricades and walls
Barricades and walls are hastily assembled obstacles or the remains of once proud structures.

Doesn't that say you can ruins and parts?

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ.

Disagree all you want, it won't change that basic principle.

pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL

That page had no bearing on whether our not it is legal to model a different sized ADL.

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game ...

I don't recall ever claiming that house rules were against the spirit of the game. By very definition they're against the regular mechanics.

but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

What, the thread's over because you're not interested in further discussion...?

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Because the ability to create house rules or custom models with your opponent's permission has never been in any doubt. That's not the issue here.