I've asked this question before in other threads but could never get a clear response or the thread would devolve into arguing. Are grots prevented from firing the ADL quad gun due to being too short and unable to see over the wall? Because in artillery rules you must measure range and LOS using the operator of the artillery piece. I just really want to make sure I'm not making any mistakes when doing this.
of course if you do that you probably won't get cover from the ADL then either
Perhaps. It would take a bit of a model's eye view but I think you can probably get the eyeline of a grot over the wall without exposing the entire torso. Ymmv.
But the Grot is tiny, and nimble. He's resourceful and cunning, mostly because he's a coward but he's a smart coward nonetheless. I say the Grot CAN fire the ADL Gun because it has a targeting display, because he can climb on top of another Grot and aim while a third Grot yanks the firing mechanism, because it's an Orky ADL Gun and the Grots built a platform for it, because TLoS is ridiculous, because I'm drunk and I want the Grot to fire the gun! Either he does it or I send a Nob over to bash 'im!
Besides, the Grot can't hit anything anyways. Just let the lil guy fire the gun and have a laugh as he hits everything BUT the target.
darkcloak wrote: But the Grot is tiny, and nimble. He's resourceful and cunning, mostly because he's a coward but he's a smart coward nonetheless. I say the Grot CAN fire the ADL Gun because it has a targeting display, because he can climb on top of another Grot and aim while a third Grot yanks the firing mechanism, because it's an Orky ADL Gun and the Grots built a platform for it, because TLoS is ridiculous, because I'm drunk and I want the Grot to fire the gun! Either he does it or I send a Nob over to bash 'im!
Besides, the Grot can't hit anything anyways. Just let the lil guy fire the gun and have a laugh as he hits everything BUT the target.
You cay all you want, but the rules state otherwise.
Or if we are going to go by Fluff I should be able to win 30,000 point games with 1000 points of marines; after all a single squad is supposed to be able to pacify a city, so 2000 points of any army would be an easy auto win for 2000 points of marines.
darkcloak wrote: But the Grot is tiny, and nimble. He's resourceful and cunning, mostly because he's a coward but he's a smart coward nonetheless. I say the Grot CAN fire the ADL Gun because it has a targeting display, because he can climb on top of another Grot and aim while a third Grot yanks the firing mechanism, because it's an Orky ADL Gun and the Grots built a platform for it, because TLoS is ridiculous, because I'm drunk and I want the Grot to fire the gun! Either he does it or I send a Nob over to bash 'im!
Besides, the Grot can't hit anything anyways. Just let the lil guy fire the gun and have a laugh as he hits everything BUT the target.
Don't mind the crusty old dakkaites, Darkcloak, I found it amusing
mrshl9898 wrote: All you need to do is have the gun at the end of the wall and jump one grot a turn in front to fire it.
This, let them waste a whole unit's shooting on one grot.
Even better put the gun behind the aegis but at the far end so the gun can claim a cover save from the ADL and the grot can still get into base to fire the gun.
Ask your TO for their own ruling. Sofar, 100% of TO's have said "feth that gak, Grots can use the weapon", but YMMV
Also you can modify the base of the model without breaching the rules. Stick the Grot on a rock or some gak, and laugh as certain opponents cry MFA and tear out their neckbeards
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
Dakkamite wrote: Also you can modify the base of the model without breaching the rules. Stick the Grot on a rock or some gak, and laugh as certain opponents cry MFA and tear out their neckbeards
Elevating a model on the base to gain an advantage is the literal definition of MFA. If you do that, it would only be fair if your opponents glue some tall grass or sandbags on their bases so they are always in cover. Down that path lies madness.
Ask your TO for their own ruling. Sofar, 100% of TO's have said "feth that gak, Grots can use the weapon", but YMMV
Also you can modify the base of the model without breaching the rules. Stick the Grot on a rock or some gak, and laugh as certain opponents cry MFA and tear out their neckbeards
So you'd be OK with me modelling my base such that you couldnt draw LOS to my model? As long as youre consistent.
Other option is if you’re meta and tournaments allow, custom or 3rd party ADL's, I'd prefer that to just house ruling they can shoot over. Check first.
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
Conceded, I just got my hackles up because we were talkin' 'bout my grots man.... I mean they're grots! They've been crapped on all their short lives and now this...
Have a heart bro!
But seriously...shouldn't LOS be drawn from the QG anyway? Even though I'd be the likely beneficiary, I don't think I'd disallow my opponent (even in a tourney) to not shoot at me.
Nem wrote: Other option is if you’re meta and tournaments allow, custom or 3rd party ADL's
I personally use GW's Ork Barricade kit. It's the same length as an ADL (almost as if they designed it that way )
It's not quite as tactically flexible, as it doesn't have the small sections, but is a good height for grots.
So far non of my opponents have complained, and GW are happy for you to use it at their tournaments.
I don't know, I think a grot standing on the shoulder of another grot would be quite funny. Tournament legal? Nah. But it would be quite funny. Especially if there's another pair nearby looking through the slots as spotters.
Munga wrote: I don't know, I think a grot standing on the shoulder of another grot would be quite funny. Tournament legal? Nah. But it would be quite funny. Especially if there's another pair nearby looking through the slots as spotters.
Forge World has such a model, as part of the Gretchin Crew.
note that in the eyes of many players, that would not be modeling for advantage. You would be modeling for a disadvantage just as well as an advantage. if you elevate one grot so it can see/be seen according to the rules, that it the only one that would take damage from incoming shots.
You could always build your own orky ADL (or magnet on a step on the backside for them to stand on where they could all see over it. Again, that it not modeling for advantage because your also adding in the disadvantage of makeing them easier to be shot at and it being lower so covering less of larger models like ork boyz or looted wagons that might also be behind it.
Well, it IS literally modelling for advantage - you want to be able to shoot with a model that could not otherwise do so, and are doing so by altering the model. Absoilutely MFA
EVIL INC wrote: note that in the eyes of many players, that would not be modeling for advantage. You would be modeling for a disadvantage just as well as an advantage. if you elevate one grot so it can see/be seen according to the rules, that it the only one that would take damage from incoming shots.
You could always build your own orky ADL (or magnet on a step on the backside for them to stand on where they could all see over it. Again, that it not modeling for advantage because your also adding in the disadvantage of makeing them easier to be shot at and it being lower so covering less of larger models like ork boyz or looted wagons that might also be behind it.
Regardless of any disadvantage the you get, does your model have an advantage the stock model does not?
Yes?
Literally modeling for advantage. Some people may not take issue with it because of the disadvantage, but that doesn't mean you're not modeling for advantage.
For reference - I would take issue with it. It's not any different than making a dreadnought stand on something so he can fire over a Rhino.
For the rhino / dreadnought thing, we actually had this as a FAQ in our 5th edition tournaments that we ran - that ANY rhino, on a level surface, blocks a dreadnought from firing. This was after some really crappily done "conversions" showed up for some GK psyrifleman spam armies, where they used a quad gun and essentially had the two sets of barrels on the top of the dreadnoughts chassis, not on arms to the side, specifically so they could hide behind razorbacks.
Some of the old Grot big Gunnz crew are taller. There is also a grot in a WHFB box that is standing on his tiptoes mooning everyone funny as all get out the way it looks.. Those models are plentytall enough to see over an ADL to fire the Quad gun.
Good thing I don't use grots or play orks. Not a big deal to meeither ay. Personally, if you were playing against me, I would have no problem with you shooting over it I play for fun, not WAAC.
I also play for fun and would have a problem with it.
It has nothing to do with playing for fun or not - it has everything to do with a social contract and not trying to take advantage of the other person.
How is building a custom ADL which stock grots can see over any less MFA than elevating grots? And where are your custom ADLs to be literally any shape and size you wish?
Stock grots cannot see over stock ADLs. All the examples are not official models for grots or big guns. All those forge world examples are vehicle upgrades and vehicle crew. If you bought a model from forge world explicitly to have a single grot to see over an ADL, then you are basically opening the door for anyone to proxy any model for anything.
Ammo runts, grot oilers, vehicle crew and decorations are not big guns crew or stock grots. While they can stand-in, if they are different enough to gain an advantage, they are inappropriate proxies then. Feel free to use an array of grots and goblins as long as you don't try to gain an unfair advantage... Like shooting over something you could never do with regular models for Ana vantage no other ork player on the planet can do without cheating.
EVIL INC wrote:Good thing I don't use grots or play orks. Not a big deal to meeither ay. Personally, if you were playing against me, I would have no problem with you shooting over it I play for fun, not WAAC.
How about if I want to shoot over my Land Raider with my Dreadnought? Or why stop there? That Bastion that's in front of my Guardsmen... it's a bit inconvenient to me that they can't see over it, so that's all good to shoot over too, right?
Hell, why not just throw the rulebook out entirely, and we'll just spend two hours pushing models around the board making 'pew pew' noises and arguing about who got whom first.
Again, wanting to play the game by the actual rules is not 'WAAC'.
Boblogik wrote:What about shortening the ADL? It's still an ADL in length, just shorter in height to allow shorter models to see over.
If you alter a model in order to garner an in game advantage, that pretty much by definition counts as modelling for advantage, and will get people riled.
Ammo runts, grot oilers, vehicle crew and decorations are not big guns crew or stock grots. While they can stand-in, if they are different enough to gain an advantage, they are inappropriate proxies then. Feel free to use an array of grots and goblins as long as you don't try to gain an unfair advantage... Like shooting over something you could never do with regular models for Ana vantage no other ork player on the planet can do without cheating.
Sorry but the blister/box mine came in said Gretchin and they have the GW logo on the tab. Nothing there is unfair it is just using GW supplied miniatures in their original unmodified position to fire a GW original unmodified weapon a GW game without modifying any rules. Just because I found some (well with around 10k of orks I all ready had them) grots that will work with models and rules currently supplied does not mesn I have gained an unfair advantage. It means i am playing within the ruleset provided.
Boblogik wrote:What about shortening the ADL? It's still an ADL in length, just shorter in height to allow shorter models to see over.
If you alter a model in order to garner an in game advantage, that pretty much by definition counts as modelling for advantage, and will get people riled.
Ah but you're also gaining a disadvantage, the reduced height will be less likely to protect vehicles and other further back models]
Edit: I play imp guard and I don't think it's fair the other races have to use something that is more designed for imperial/SM players. That model itself is MFA for the imp players in a way haha.
Boblogik wrote:What about shortening the ADL? It's still an ADL in length, just shorter in height to allow shorter models to see over.
If you alter a model in order to garner an in game advantage, that pretty much by definition counts as modelling for advantage, and will get people riled.
Ah but you're also gaining a disadvantage, the reduced height will be less likely to protect vehicles and other further back models
which of course does not matter as you are still MFA...
put some grots behind the gun but to its side, so that they see around the "side" of the ADL/gun,
the gun is always fired as stationary, so its really not a problem, you might lose a grot a turn since he might not get cover, but who cares? replace him with another, and if the grots cant see over the line, they cant BE seen, so its actually a good thing. youll only lose one grot a turn, and can still fire.
put some grots behind the gun but to its side, so that they see around the "side" of the ADL/gun,
the gun is always fired as stationary, so its really not a problem, you might lose a grot a turn since he might not get cover, but who cares? replace him with another, and if the grots cant see over the line, they cant BE seen, so its actually a good thing. youll only lose one grot a turn, and can still fire.
Exactly what easysauce has said.
I dont think anyone is going to waste a round of shooting just to kill 1 grot...
Or you could put the gun in the center of the ADL and put a grot on top of it (The Gun Emplacement is Difficult terrain). and that way you do not have to have the gun at the end of the ADL if you do not want it there.
Boblogik wrote: Ah but you're also gaining a disadvantage, the reduced height will be less likely to protect vehicles and other further back models]
Which would be a valid point if you were trying to hide vehicles and other models behind the ADL, rather than grots...
Edit: I play imp guard and I don't think it's fair the other races have to use something that is more designed for imperial/SM players. That model itself is MFA for the imp players in a way haha.
You obviously haven't tried putting a heavy weapons team behind an ADL yet, then...
Boblogik wrote: Ah but you're also gaining a disadvantage, the reduced height will be less likely to protect vehicles and other further back models]
Which would be a valid point if you were trying to hide vehicles and other models behind the ADL, rather than grots...
Edit: I play imp guard and I don't think it's fair the other races have to use something that is more designed for imperial/SM players. That model itself is MFA for the imp players in a way haha.
You obviously haven't tried putting a heavy weapons team behind an ADL yet, then...
Nope, I don't ever really field the ADL, I tend to rely on the board for cover and vendettas for anti-air (I know what you're saying though, most HWTs can't see over them or through the slots, only my standing "stinger"-style missile launchers can see over). When I do field the ADL it tends to be my counts-as ADL using pegasus hobbies sandbag walls, the set with 6 pieces (4 of them curved) comes close the adl length (I choose a combination that is like 2 in less in length rather than over length) and I have never had a player say no or even make a comment on it, but I don't play tourneys or at GW owned stores...
I will say this, I feel the argument is a tad silly anyhow and one of the reasons I am glad I abandoned playing in tourneys. If an ork player made a grot friendly adl, I'd let him/her use it, no problems from me. Especially because if a grot can see over it, I can see them and they're pretty easy to pop.
I purposely put a stand guy on my HWT when I use them for just that reason. many will cry MFA but they are laughed out of the stor. When the disadvantages outweigh the advantages 2 or 3 to 1, that argument goes right out the window.
insaniak wrote: Why is it silly to expect an opponent to follow the LOS rules?
I never said it was silly to obey a rule in the game, I said it was silly to not allow another player to make an adl that works for them as long as it meets the max length and max height of the real adl (otherwise you have crazy long ones that span entire fronts or ones that russes can sit behind entirely with just their turret showing...), really a shorter wall is not an advantage, it brings certain things into usability. And if you begin to question if a shorter wall is mfa, then what about kneeling guardsmen, they must be mfa because it reduces their profile...
Boblogik wrote: I never said it was silly to obey a rule in the game, I said it was silly to not allow another player to make an adl that works for them as long as it meets the max length and max height of the real adl ...
I'm a little confused as to how it can meet the specs of the original ADL, but be shorter...
And if you begin to question if a shorter wall is mfa, then what about kneeling guardsmen, they must be mfa because it reduces their profile...
Because heavy wepons teams not being able to see their target is such a big advantage...
In actual practice, most players won't have a problem with a custom ADL, so long as it's not too ridiculous. More players would have a problem with you wanting to draw LOS over something that is too tall for the model to see over.
Boblogik wrote: I never said it was silly to obey a rule in the game, I said it was silly to not allow another player to make an adl that works for them as long as it meets the max length and max height of the real adl ...
I'm a little confused as to how it can meet the specs of the original ADL, but be shorter...
And if you begin to question if a shorter wall is mfa, then what about kneeling guardsmen, they must be mfa because it reduces their profile...
Because heavy wepons teams not being able to see their target is such a big advantage...
In actual practice, most players won't have a problem with a custom ADL, so long as it's not too ridiculous. More players would have a problem with you wanting to draw LOS over something that is too tall for the model to see over.
You misread my words again, I said "as long as it meets the max length and max height of the real adl ..." I don't see how a smaller wall is an advantage but I guess I'm not the kind of player
Also I was referring to kneeling infantry not kneeling hwt dudes. But really until there is an official ADL for other races, we won't know if GW intended any used adl to match the silhouette of the imperial one exactly. I wonder if the rumored fortification based expansion will bring a wave of other race fortifications. Until then we have this problem, which is only a problem for tourney players I feel since you said yourself you'd allow custom adls as long as they're not ridiculous.
So doing so ring you cannot do with stock models is a documented advantage. I love how people try to justify gaining an ability they couldn't do with stock models as not an advantage then claiming to be justified to have the advantage because they have met some arbitrary line in the sand where they gain the advantage but claim it is not an advantage. So now going over max dimensions is an advantage but being smaller is not?
If you want to use counts as custom models, then you should always be willing to play them as if they were the stock model with no difference. If you are unwilling to play them as the stock model, then you are MfA and a tool.
Claiming the rights of casual players and blame tourney mentality as a universal shield to cheat is weak sauce. Exploiting the rules and MFA and pre-empt their objections with calling them TFG makes you the TFG.
No stock grots or big guns crew GW has ever made can see over the stock ADL. The only fair way for the game to be played is if no ork player anywhere has grots seeing over the wall. This is not the same as a random kneeling fire warrior where there are stock models who can see.
Buying 3rd party counts as grots, custom ADLs and using ammo grots or grot riggers for proxies to gain the ability to see where no one anywhere can achieve that rule change is being TFG.
nkelsch wrote: If you want to use counts as custom models, then you should always be willing to play them as if they were the stock model with no difference.
You really shouldn't.
The game works off the physical model that is on the table. If you object to an opponent using a custom model, the time to resolve that is before the game - don't play them, or insist on them using the correct model (assuming one is available). Don't spend the entire game pretending that their model is something that it isn't... that way lies madness.
nkelsch wrote: If you want to use counts as custom models, then you should always be willing to play them as if they were the stock model with no difference.
You really shouldn't.
The game works off the physical model that is on the table. If you object to an opponent using a custom model, the time to resolve that is before the game - don't play them, or insist on them using the correct model (assuming one is available). Don't spend the entire game pretending that their model is something that it isn't... that way lies madness.
I'm with insaniak on this one. Talk to your opponent before the game, find out if they use anything non-standard or in a lot of cases non-wysiwyg before playing so that if you have a problem, it can be resolved as mentioned above, and vice versa, always let your opponent know of anything in your own possession they need to know about.
It is not hard to use a stock model or simply "not shoot over the adl"
It isn't as hard as you make it and is not a justification for cheating with MFA. If you are unwilling to replace your model with a stock model or a model of approximate size and profile of the stock model, the game can't be played.
Conversions should be as close as possible and you should bend over backwards to not take unfair advantage of differences. When in question, you take the disadvantage. Grots can't see over an ADL.
nkelsch wrote: It is not hard to use a stock model or simply "not shoot over the adl"
It's hard to use a stock model if you don't have one... and trying to determine what could or could not see over a stock model if you don't have one is an exercise in futility.
But this isn't just a random idea I've applied to the ADL... it goes for all conversions or scratch-builds. If you're using a non-standard model, then you're using a non-standard model. Point it out to an opponent before the game, and then either get on with the game or go find someone else if your views on that model don't mesh.
The whole 'treat it as a stock model' approach just doesn't work ina game that uses TLOS. It's particularly absurd in a game that uses TLOS and has stock models with vastly different LOS profiles depending on which version of the model you have, or which parts you decide to use.
It's ultimately going to cause more arguments than it resolves.
Buying 3rd party counts as grots, custom ADLs and using ammo grots or grot riggers for proxies to gain the ability to see where no one anywhere can achieve that rule change is being TFG.
Mind pointing me to the page in the rulebook which shows which gretchin are allowed to be fielded with an ADL and which ones are not? I must have a misprint as i can not find that reference page. I have some really old Grots that can see over an ADL and guess what their tab says? "Gretchin". If using an unmodified GW model for it's intended purpose makes someone TfG then th,at applies to just about everyone here doesn't it?
It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.
The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.
That being said, this is a hardline approach that is usually more a response to the same old 'But if I use a taller grot I can see over it' argument than an actual indication of how people play the game. Being unreasonable about modelling works both ways... while it's reasonable to expect that you should be able to use whichever Gretchin you choose as your Gun crew, on the basis that they're all Gretchin, it's also reasonable for your opponent to object if you are doing so solely because those specific models allow you to see over something that the gun crew couldn't normally see over.
It's a mess created by TLOS. Without TLOS, or with TLOS that included strict guidelines on appropriate model use, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Instead, it's something that winds up getting argued back and forth every edition.
Guys, they used to give you blueprints for building your own models in their magazine. I think we all need to remember that when talking about stuff like this, and this is probably something new players should know too.
It all used to just be paper and imagination.
I think it's fairly safe to say that without that driving spirit behind the game things like DakkaDakka would not exist. After all, we're all here because we like to paint and cut and glue right? The hobby sure seems to have come a long way, but I sense that perhaps it's starting to bloat a little bit, perhaps like the very Imperium itself? Wouldn't that be ironic.
I know this thread is about TLoS and here I am blathering on, but when things start taking a bad turn someone has to say something! Sure the rules say one thing and logic often says another but when we start having it out about customizing your models and crying things like MFA or whatever that just cuts it for me. I mean what are ya gonna do IRL? Have an argument for 20 minutes? Especially since we're talking about a piddly unit firing one zapping weapon!
I didn't get into this to argue about how I glue my toys together, as I'm sure the OP didn't either, and if this is how Mini Wargaming is well then maybe I'll just paint the damn things and collect em like stamps. Stamps made out of paper.
Modeling to have a cool model is one thing. Modeling to gain an advantage in the game is another. Most people don't think MFA is acceptable in my experiences.
the players call putting standing guardsmen on a HWT "modeling for advantage" because the "official" heavy weapons teams that come in the heavy weapons team box set are all crouching. To use any others in their eyes is MFA because that isn't "how they come" I think that's a crock, especially as im giving myself more disadvantages than advantages but hey, whatcha gonna do.
My queston to these guys is this if you had the opportunity to play against Andy Chambers or John Blanche or Rick priestleyor any of the other big names, would you refuse to play them because they have converted their models to the point where they stand taller than the 'base' model?
darkcloak wrote: . I mean what are ya gonna do IRL? Have an argument for 20 minutes?
That's pretty much exactly why we have threads like this here - so you don't wind up having the argument at the table, because you already know what to expect.
The thing is, as much as GW promote (or did, up until the start of 6th edition) modelling in the hobby, their rules have never really sufficiently addressed how modelling choices affect the game. And so we get discussions like this one, where some players feel that anything is fair game, and others feel that when you alter or scratch-build a model, you need to consider how that will impact on the model's function within the game.
The key to happy gaming is knowing where you stand, and finding opponents with a similar approach to the game.
I don't remember who it was but I will quote them (re: paraphrase badly) anyway:
"Ask yourself this:
Am I modeling, modifying, or substituting a model purely and simply because it looks good to me and fits my army? Or am I doing it to gain a tactical or in-game advantage, however slight, over using the original model?
Modeling for advantage is very easy to determine. The hard part is figuring out if you're lying to yourself."
Personally, if someone wants to MFA, that's fair enough but at least be honest about it. At least then I'll still respect you as a person, if not as a player.
insaniak wrote: It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.
The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.
And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?
And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?
No, because by doing so you aren't giving yourself an advantage. For example, using a Devastator with a heavy bolter as a Havoc or CSM Troop with a Heavy Bolter is fine. It's not the right model per se, but it is perfectly WYSIWYG. However, were I to give my Havocs the legs of Raptors (which are taller), I would be significantly altering the model to the point where they would be able to see over walls and the like that they would otherwise not be able to. This would be modeling for advantage, while modeling the Riptide (as it is quite a pose-able model) to be standing to its maximum height or crouching as low as possible (which could be done for 'MFA' reasons) wouldn't be an issue. Altering a Trygon to have a lower profile would be.
EDIT: This means that I would (albeit begrudgingly) accept it if my opponent rejected my Raptors because most of them use Assault Marine running legs. Or rather, I would be content with treating them as appropriately taller models for purposes of LOS and cover.
insaniak wrote: It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.
The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.
And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?
According to the extreme MFA players, it would be illegal. The only way t you could do it and not give them a reason (however farfetched) would be to buy a completely extra set of big gunz and use the actual grot crew that comes with it as your extra crewmen. Every player I know wouldn't make you do that (I know I would not), but an extreme mfa person would.
Boss GreenNutz wrote: And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?
Why would 'extra crew' be any different to the regular crew? They're all just big gun crew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: According to the extreme MFA players, it would be illegal. The only way t you could do it and not give them a reason (however farfetched) would be to buy a completely extra set of big gunz and use the actual grot crew that comes with it as your extra crewmen. Every player I know wouldn't make you do that (I know I would not), but an extreme mfa person would.
You're confusing a discussion of the technicalities of the rules with how people actually play the game.
Massively exaggerating in your classic way I see, EVIL INC. While I agree that disallowing manning the Quad Gun (it's such a minor and situational thing, really, I don't care) is kind of silly, it would and should not be allowed in serious games. And, once again, you are completely missing all the points people have made.
DogOfWar wrote: I don't remember who it was but I will quote them (re: paraphrase badly) anyway:
"Ask yourself this:
Am I modeling, modifying, or substituting a model purely and simply because it looks good to me and fits my army? Or am I doing it to gain a tactical or in-game advantage, however slight, over using the original model?
Modeling for advantage is very easy to determine. The hard part is figuring out if you're lying to yourself."
Adding Big Gunz crew using grot models for the specific purpose of increasing the squad size is not MFA. Nor is modeling a Devastator's heavy bolter and backpack on a Tactical Marine, or putting Assault Marine running legs on Tactical Marines.
I am about to use the daemonic skulls that come with the Khorne Lord of Skulls (bought from a bitz site, I didn't actually buy that awful thing) for power armour helmets. Why am I doing this? Because the daemonic heads will give these models a specific mechanical advantage in the game? Then I'm modeling for advantage.
How about I take my Pathfinders and mount them all on very tall rocks or trees, so they can see above everyone's cover? How about I model a Carnifex to be extraordinarily tall, for the purpose of shooting over cover? Or, like in someone's previous example, how about I model my Dreadnoughts to be a bit taller, or have their guns on top, so they can shoot over Rhinos? MFA.
Using a Chaos Chosen with Lightning Claws from Dark Vengeance as, say, an Aspiring Champion with Lightning Claws? Not MFA.
Modeling all of my Firewarriors to be kneeling so that they are totally obscured behind the Aegis Defense Line? MFA.
Adding Big Gunz crew that are Gretchin but not actually from the Big Gunz set is not modeling for advantage unless you are specifically modeling them for an advantage. Like modeling all of them on the back of an Ork Boy specifically to allow them to shoot over cover, or something.
2nd edition plastic grots cannot see over the stock ADL. There is not a single gw40k grot model which has an eyeline over 1". Including gorka morka headhoncho and red gobo.
You have to give scenic bases for them to see over, or use 3rd party models or other non-40k goblins as counts as. And you fail rule of cool and are MFA.
If you want to use a Gretchen as a big guns crew, then as long as the models are interacting with the rules roughly the same, so be it. If the model swap suddenly grants an advantage which you wouldn't normally have and change the rules, then no.
If you are trying to justify grots having the right to shoot over an ADL, then you are the problem. Any modifications to models to make it happen is going to cause issues. Why would anyone want to rely on a tactic which no one else anywhere can do and is tantamount to cheating? Maybe figure out a different way to use grots?
You have to give scenic bases for them to see over, or use 3rd party models or other non-40k goblins as counts as. And you fail rule of cool and are MFA.
If you want to use a Gretchen as a big guns crew, then as long as the models are interacting with the rules roughly the same, so be it. If the model swap suddenly grants an advantage which you wouldn't normally have and change the rules, then no.
If you are trying to justify grots having the right to shoot over an ADL, then you are the problem. Any modifications to models to make it happen is going to cause issues. Why would anyone want to rely on a tactic which no one else anywhere can do and is tantamount to cheating? Maybe figure out a different way to use grots?
The peeking out strategy is a perfectly viable method of doing so without breaking any rules or doing any kind of trickery, too!
I was just pointing out the double standard. In myview, if yourgoing to be WAAC absolutely no models to be altered in any way or no models used that was not specifically designed for that use, you should use the same standard across the board. Saying "You cant ue the guardsman with standing legs on a heavy weapons team because it lets the team see what a "normal guardsman sees" or you cant use that grot you converted back in 2nd edition to look cool stomping on a marine helmet because it lets him see over an ADL when grots are designed to not be ble to see oer it" sets you up for a double standard that is rather hypocritical if you are then perfectly fine with using taller 2nd edition plastic grots as extra crew members.
It is my opinion that if you take that hardline of a view, you should be consistant with i.
EVIL INC wrote: I was just pointing out the double standard. In myview, if yourgoing to be WAAC absolutely no models to be altered in any way or no models used that was not specifically designed for that use, ...
So you're complaining about a hypothetical situation that nobody in this thread was actually endorsing.
Nobody is insisting that you should only use stock standard models. What they are saying is that using conversions or different models for the sole purpose of giving yourself an in-game advantage is inappropriate.
Insaniak, I think you don't have much experience with EVIL INC. He tends to turn all other opinions into straw and back up his own wild beliefs with "I am right because I said so". Trust me, you'll get nowhere by pointing out the flaws in his logic.
my point is that pretty much ANY conversion could be considered to give an advantage of some kind. This could range from having a bike popping a wheelie to a grot standing on and stomping a marine helmet to my old Tzeentch chaos lord on disc flying over a oss grown boulder with dead guardsmen around it. it could also range from the kneeling wraithlord to the punisher russ having an 8 incher barrel to any other of the more obvious choices.
uh, frozen Oceon, don't insult me without cause or reason (see the link to the forum rules in my sig) I am only putting forth MY opinion and I may be right or wrong or somewhere in between. I don't really care so long as you treat me and my opinion with the same respect and dignity that I do you and yours.
anyway, you might want to field an older model (My chaos army was mostly old RTB01 with chaos backpacks)because they simply cant afford to go out and buy new ones and if someone wanted to be a jerk, they could accuse the player of using the older models for advantage. likewise, they could claim that I put my lord up that high flying over the boulder to give him an advantage of sight while in actuality, I did it because I thought it would look really cool and wanted to experiment with putting the flight stand through the boulder before painting it. even me modeling my guard issile launchers onto standing bodies, someone could throw a fit about while in actuality, it was to save models and get more bang for my buck.
What I am trying to say is that MOST situations, common sense and good sportsmanship will win out. however, we need to be prepared for extreme radical case that MAY arise (which hopefully it never will). This is why when I give examples, I give extreme "never hppen" examples because even though we may believe it will never happen, you know as well as I that somewhere, sometime, it will when someone least expects it. That is why I play the devils advocate.
Like I said, I don't care if your grots can shoot over it or not. To meit is only a game and not worth an argument.
You ignore what was said above. Are you modeling it because it is cool? Fine. Are you modeling it because you want it to see over cover/do something it wasn't able to do before? Not fine.
Using taller Grots specifically to allow them to see over cover and therefore use the Quad Gun is MFA, just as it would be to have a Dreadnought on a rock base so it could see over Rhinos. Doing something because it looks cool is not MFA. As said above, the trick is working out if you're lying to yourself.
For example, there are plenty of cool Heldrake conversions, some of which may or may not give them a greater wingspan. If the conversion was for the specific purpose of giving them a greater wingspan (which allows for more Vector Striking), it is MFA. If it was for purposes of conversion and it just so happens to give it a greater wingspan, it is subject to rule of cool - you must agree with your opponent what to do with the matter. Generally a good conversion made for its own sake will stand out (as opposed to a Heldrake with a pair of Valkyrie wings stuck on to its own for no reason). Good example. It's easy to tell that the conversion was made to make the model look more Nurgley.
In the case of your grot on top of a helmet, it would have to be agreed as to whether or not it would be allowed to man the Quad Gun. Most people wouldn't care, especially not in a casual game. But in a tournament or other super-competitive setting, it would be considered MFA and they would be reasonably allowed to reject it on that basis. That's the point we're trying to make, here. Most people won't reject it - but if they do, they're perfectly allowed to as per the rules.
Ah this is when it becomes too competitive for what it is. If that is the case then all basing that has nay osrt of slate or cork with the models standing on should really not be used.
I don't agree.
If I was playing somebody who had grots behind an ADL, I would just let them fire. If I have to be that anal about the rules to win, or to feel like I am winning, then I wouldn't want to play.
Its just a little bit of imagination and common sense. Of course it can be take too far, and there will be examples of that. But if a grot cant fire over an adl line then the world has actually gone mad.
I was at our Astronomicon tournament in March this year. My 4th game was my first loss so I got paired up with an Eldar player for my 5th game.
He brought out his army and was a super nice guy, he gave me a large dice as a gift and game turn counter. Anyways. He brought out his WrathKnight and immediately started to tell me his fluff behind the model and how it was posed in this dramatic fighting scene as it had killed a Demon Prince.
Long story short the model was beautiful, and it has a great story behind why he posed it, kinda bending over. Then he placed his army and because of the pose the model was out of TLOS from my SwarmLord.
I started filling out the score sheet and extended my hand to my opponent. In shock he asked what I was doing. I explained he was MFA and because he cheated I'd be giving him a low sportsmanship score as well as taking a full 10 points for the win.
This was a 30 player tournament and a couple guys on either side started to pay attention. I had just finished the score sheet when the TO arrived. We explained the situation, and I calmly handed the score sheet to him.
I never saw the blow coming, the TO slapped the back of my head, told me to stop being a, and I quote "Nancy" and walked away. By this point the whole tournament was paying attention and now amongst our local gaming group I'm known as "Nancy".
Don't be a Nancy.
Also before your game just discuss with your opponent you like to say the gross orcs can see over the ADL and shoot the quad gun. In turn they can be shot at as normal with the 4up cover save.
Stormbreed wrote: I never saw the blow coming, the TO slapped the back of my head, told me to stop being a, and I quote "Nancy" and walked away. By this point the whole tournament was paying attention and now amongst our local gaming group I'm known as "Nancy".
Don't be a Nancy.
Yeah, I personally would have zero problem with just letting the grots see over the wall in a friendly game with my friends. Concentrating on that sort of minutiae is totally unfun. However, I would absolutely refuse to play someone who glued tall rocks onto their bases for that purpose. Intent really is a big part of it.
Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.
Christopher300 wrote: Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.
Ah ok. So the argument is that following the LOS rules is just too much bother?
LOS is pivotal to almost every aspect of the game in this edition. That's hardly what I would call 'trivial'
Depends how you view the game really. And yes I like a competitive tournament game but I still think it should be fun and not trivialised. And yes I think a grot model being able to see over the wall or a kneeling guardsman, is pretty trivial. Yes LOS is very important, and it is a rule, and obviously if a model can not see through the building, it cant shoot. (although I have my own opinions on ruins - separate discussion I guess).
Spirit of the game i as important as any rules, even for competitive play.
But where do you draw the line? If there's a small hill the same height as an ADL can he see over that too? What about a Marine - can he see over something as tall as he is?
There's an easy place to arbitrarily draw a line - and that's what's actually modeled.
Christopher300 wrote: Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.
They can't. The slots are too high. Grots eye level is really short.
The difference between a. Grot and every other model is there is such thing as a standing imperial guard and tau.
You now are channeling the my thing "spirit of the game" to gain an advantage... Maybe I think "in the spirit of the game" no one should attempt to have grots see over an ADL because in a vacuum they would never be able to, so in the spirit of the game, even if I had a grot or two on a cinematic base, I would never even attempt to shoot over an ADL with them.
Funny how "spirit of the game" means "I can cheat and call you TFG and if you don't let me I will cry about the spirit of the game."
Why should you be allowed to see over a ADL with grots, a model explicitly designed to be super small for a variety of reasons. Why can't you just do the "peeking grot" technique to fire your sentry gun opposed to requiring people to pretend your grots can tippy toe for personal advantage?
The easiest way to take care of this is use the grot from the Spear Chukka kit. He is the tallest Grot in the model range and he can see over an ADL to fire the quad gun. Perfectly legal since he is an unmodified GW produced mini used behind an unmodified ADL firing an unmodified Quad Gun or Icarus LC.
Boss GreenNutz wrote: The easiest way to take care of this is use the grot from the Spear Chukka kit. He is the tallest Grot in the model range and he can see over an ADL to fire the quad gun. Perfectly legal since he is an unmodified GW produced mini used behind an unmodified ADL firing an unmodified Quad Gun or Icarus LC.
When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.
Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.
If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?
That's what I said. Look at my Tzeentch lord on disc. I modeled it to look cool and experiment with modeling. To me, the intent was that without even thinking about line of sight. My point is that a WAAC player could accuse me of doing it just to make him taller. THIS is where that one person of out a million in my 'never happen" scenario will rear his head. That accusation against someone whose model is even the slightest bit onverted and not straight out of a box bland because it gives them even the slightest bit of an advantage (regardless of any disadvantages the one in a million player exploited during the same game) will leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth afterwards.
The conversion doesn't have to be intended to have been done for an advantage for someone to make the accusation.
This is why I address the extremes so that we are not blindsided by them.
Again, I don't care if your grots are taller than marines and can see over the wall, I'l acceptit as modeled. just don't have a cow if I then tell you that I can see them and shoot at the unit and we are fine.
On a side note.(please not the extreme never happen one in a million case here but it does seem to mirror some of the ideas putout here so far) The ADL is obviously imperial. Why would an ork army have one to begin with. They might use it on a battlefield if it was already there (set up as part of the normal terrain) but they would not have brought it with them to deploy it. As the citadel one is not ork just using it would be modeling for advantage because it is not an ork model. Now from what I am seeing here, an ork player making an adl out of ork barricades(I'm assuming grots can see over these) would also be considered modeling for advantage because it would allow the shorter models to see over it and be cool orky workmanshit but still be considered modeling for advantage because it does not perfectly match the imperial adl dimensions and is not officially an ADL because the package they were bought in said "ork barricades". Would you not assume that a grot building an orky adl (you know orks would rather build guns and faster buggies than fool with a weedy wall to hide behind) that they would build it to a height they could see over or at least put holes in it for them to see/shoot through?
Likewise elder. I saw some beautiful elder adls posted her. Would they not be allowed because they were not official?Even though I know they are made with the rule of cool in mind but as they don't perfectly match the "oficial' imperial one old, that never happen person could claim despite all obvious facts showing them otherwise that it was for some sort of advantage.
Note, That I am not saying I would agree with that person, Only pointing out that it is possible. This is why I always assume it is don't from the elder wall, grots on helmets, crouching wraithknights, whatever are done just to look cooler. Even if I suspect otherwise, I keep it to myself and just play the game because having fun and playing the game is more important to me than winning at all costs. it is also why I model for coolness (I think it would only be smart for a spotter to stand where he can actually do his job) or for money in terms of I cant afford the official model and never for an advantage. If an opponent sees something in my army as I am setting up that he fels is mfa, they can tell me then and I will be more than happy to proxy in something they are more comfortable with.
If it was done to be "cool" then you should have no objection to playing it as if it was a stock model or replacing it with a stock model if asked. When you do creative modeling, you should expect none of the advantages and gladly accept the disadvantages. That is your choice to use converted cinematic models and to not do so for advantage.
that is your opinion and it is mine and most of the others here as well.
However, as I mentioned, there will always be that one in a million "never happen" person who willnot see itthat way or make the MFA accusation just to win a game at all costs.
I am a suspicious person and have horrible luck(Murphy's law follows me like that was my real name lol).
That is why in any example both here and in other threads, I give the absolute worst case never happen scenario to demonstrate the super extreme that COULD happen. it doesn't mean I agree with t or that I am saying you agree with it either. just that is is a possibility that should be taken into account. as I said, if I face that person, I'm more than willing to trade out my converted for cool models for something they are comfortable with to keep the peace. I bring spare models with me wheni go to game and like I said, I don't care how yours are modeled.
When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.
Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.
If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?
The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.
I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.
If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.
Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?
Its very existence, 4 pages arguing about something that would be obvious in any other game.
It is "obvious" in this game system as well. The argument was not about if the Grot can see over the ADL, since it can not see over it. It is a discussion on MFA, which is not something the rules allow.
If something does not have Line of Sight, then it can not shoot. This is a really simple issue.
When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.
Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.
If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?
The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.
I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.
If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.
So now you are going to resort to boldface lying, plausible deniability and bullying people who may not know enough about identifying models for an in-game advantage... Bravo... And anyone who calls you on being a liar or faking your "I don't know where this model originated from so it must be legal" names, that completes the scenario perfectly.
You want to use fantasy goblins as 40k grots? Fine, just don't claim any advantages from using models which don't match the size of the stock models. Your excuses are insulting and pathetic to claim you can just use a fantasy crew as a legal model because it says "grot" on it. You are being purposefully obtuse as you know which models are 40k Gretchen, and the approximate size of them. Using one on his tippy togs from a totally different game and model line is beyond the pale of sportsmanship and respecting your opponent.
And there are legal crew. So if you want to use other models to "counts as" then you need models of approximate size and shape, which tippy toes goblins are not, especially when combining your proxies with ADLs.
If something does not have Line of Sight, then it can not shoot. This is a really simple issue.
But thats my point, its a linear obstacle which in reality would have been adapted by the grots so that they could actually use it for its intended purpose, although apparently if you model it like this its 'modelling for advantage'. Most rulesets allow units adjacent to a linear obstacle to shoot through it without penalty which is easy and makes sense, obviously not 40k though.
40k is a horribly clunky ruleset as can be easily seen by the innumerable multipage threads in this very subforum.
this is where we come back to the issue. What is the difference between modeling for advantage or modeling because it looks cool? Would you be willing to let one person use a grot that they converted years ago for coolness facter (a grot stomping on a marine helmet because it killed a space marine captain in close combat) and let it fire its lil grot blaster or whatever lil peashooter it is carrying over the wall but not someone who is using a tller 2nd edition gretchin? The end result is the same, it can see over the wall. There will always be that one in a million person who will CLAIM it is done for advantage whether or not it actually was.
again, this is why I take the all or nothing extreme approach and assume all conversions are done for coolness value and let them use it because I am not there to argue, I am there to play a game and have fun. Even if they are MFA, I just don't care, let them do their thing and let someone else fight with them about it. it doesn't mean enough to me to do it.
2nd edition plastic grots cannot see over the ADL or through the slots. They are not tall enough. Remember, models see for their eyes, so being 1" tall doesn't equate to being able to see over a 1" tall wall.
You can use your converted grots, just don't expect to be able to shoot over an ADL with them. If you attempt to use a cinematic base, a proxy grot or custom ADL which results in you being able to gain an advantage, you have two choices:
1. Realize it is an undeserved advantage, forgo the advantage and play as if your models are not able to see over or through the ADL for grots.
2. Begin slinging insults and making excuses until the opponent is berated into allowing your advantage or quits.
It is simple enough to say "I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages."
It really is simple. That is the difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship.
Nice touch... One in a million. Considering this thread has half a dozen people disagreeing, you are claiming there are 6million 40k players and all the people who would see an issue post in this thread? Every attack technique to lash out at people who would question or disallow your cheating is being used here. Maybe if you scream loud enough to blame the person calling you out, you will get away with it?
Palindrome wrote:But thats my point, its a linear obstacle which in reality would have been adapted by the grots so that they could actually use it for its intended purpose,...
That's assuming that they had time to do so before the battle, rather than that they just happened to come across an old Imperial fortification and decided to use it because it was there.
There are all sorts of things that would happen 'in reality' that are not a part of the 40K game. 'In reality' when the guy with the heavy weapon gets shot, another squad member would pick it up rather than just running off and leaving it there. 'In reality' when a 10-tonne lump of metal drops from orbit onto a unit, it would squish the unit rather than backing up and landing somewhere else. 'In reality' an unscrupulous commander could order a unit to fire on a friendly unit's position in the hope of eliminating nearby enemy troops.
None of these things are actually represented in the rules, though, because the game isn't intended to be a simulation of reality. It's a board game, and it includes various abstractions that don't make a great deal of sense in 'real world' terms but which are just there to keep the game simple and playable.
One of those is that LOS revolves around the physical properties of the actual models on the table.
Whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of personal opinion (frankly, I find myself less of a fan of using TLOS with every edition of this game that I play)... but it is how this game works.
EVIL INC wrote:this is where we come back to the issue. What is the difference between modeling for advantage or modeling because it looks cool?
The latter is where you model something a certain way because it looks cool, while the former is where you model something a certain way because it will give you some sort of (actual or perceived) advantage over a model not modelled that way.
Would you be willing to let one person use a grot that they converted years ago for coolness facter (a grot stomping on a marine helmet because it killed a space marine captain in close combat) and let it fire its lil grot blaster or whatever lil peashooter it is carrying over the wall but not someone who is using a tller 2nd edition gretchin?
Which taller 2nd edition grot are you talking about? It has already been pointed out that 2nd ed gretchin are all still too short to see over the wall.
I was only using random examples. I have not gottn ut the scientific grade measuring tool that measures down to the closest atom of plastic blah blah blah. As I said, I simply do not CARE enough. my point is the people like the one who posted directly before you Insaniak who throws out that I am name calling and attacking you because I point out possibilities. or the ones like the guy I reported who came in telling you to ignore me just because he thought I was stupid.
I know what I modeled for coolness value and you may as well. In the heat of a tournament where a single blaster shot makes the difference in who wins or loses the game where the winner gets first place, will you continue to understand it was modeled for coolness or say it was MFA despite what you know in your heart? I like to think you would stick with your heart but you know there are those who would not.
This sort of one in a million situation is why I suggest the all or nothing deal where those situations are ironed out before the game even starts. As nkelsch said before he accused me of attacking him in some imagined way, there is nothing wrong with saying ""I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages." . To be honest, were he to do that, as a good sport, I would keep my same stance and tell him, "nah, play it like I is if you want". As I said, I'm not playing to win at all costs. I'm there to have fun and part of the fun is BOTH players enjoying themselves.
I don't want to be accused of MFA when I know perfectly well I did not. I'm not worried enough about winning to do that. if I lose, I lose not a big deal. But I DO like to convert for coolness. Even small conversions and kitbashes can make a unique unit or models that I like. MFA does not play a part in it at all but as we have seen here, some WILL make that accusation. if you feel any of my models are MFA, fine, I wont use them while playing you and trade off for a different one. I'm certainly not going to you in return however. I'm sure your just as proud of yours as I am of mine so I will not deny you the chance to use them in a game.
And yet you have 11 posts so far in this thread...
In the heat of a tournament where a single blaster shot makes the difference in who wins or loses the game where the winner gets first place, will you continue to understand it was modeled for coolness or say it was MFA despite what you know in your heart?
In the 'heat' of a tournament, if I think a model is going to be a problem, I would point it out before the game, when we're comparing armies. Once we start playing, the models on the table are the models on the table.
MFA does not play a part in it at all but as we have seen here, some WILL make that accusation
The 'accusations' made in this thread were specifically addressing models being altered to see over an ADL, or an ADL being altered to allow models that otherwise could not see over to do so.
Where a player specifically says that they are modelling for an advantage, it's not particularly out of line to accuse them of modelling for advantage...
I care about the game and the hobby along with the people who play it. you don't play for this many decades and not. lol Not to mention that when my mind focuses on something or a topic it is hard to get I off of it and I have millions of possibilities and situations (however unlikely0 hammering my mind and senses on that topic often confusing me to where I forget how many times I have posted or if I am repeating myselfWhat I don't care about is winning in a way that will cause hard feelings with another player. That was my fault, as being autistic, I find that many of my posts come across wrong and garbled and misunderstood. my apologies in that., nothing to say beyond that I am sorry about it and hpe you have patience with me.
the otherthings you mentoned seems like we are pretty much onhe same page. It usually takes me a while to get my full meaning out.
nkelsch wrote:If it was done to be "cool" then you should have no objection to playing it as if it was a stock model or replacing it with a stock model if asked. When you do creative modeling, you should expect none of the advantages and gladly accept the disadvantages. That is your choice to use converted cinematic models and to not do so for advantage.
nkelsch wrote: you have two choices:
1. Realize it is an undeserved advantage, forgo the advantage and play as if your models are not able to see over or through the ADL for grots.
2. Begin slinging insults and making excuses until the opponent is berated into allowing your advantage or quits.
It is simple enough to say "I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages."
EVIL INC wrote:I have not gottn ut the scientific grade measuring tool that measures down to the closest atom of plastic blah blah blah.
What? Nobody was saying anything about atoms. It has been previously covered in the thread a few times that 2E Grots cannot see over the wall. This doesn't require you to measure anything.
EVIL INC wrote:
As I said, I simply do not CARE enough. my point is the people like the one who posted directly before you Insaniak who throws out that I am name calling and attacking you because I point out possibilities. or the ones like the guy I reported who came in telling you to ignore me just because he thought I was stupid.
I did not say you were stupid. I said that you have a method of arguing that will prove impervious to any attempts at rational discussion.
EVIL INC wrote: As nkelsch said before he accused me of attacking him in some imagined way
Nkelsch did not accuse you of attacking. Either you are looking at the post directed towards Boss GreenNutz, or misunderstanding the one directed at you.
EVIL INC wrote:There is nothing wrong with saying ""I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages." . To be honest, were he to do that, as a good sport, I would keep my same stance and tell him, "nah, play it like I is if you want".
Then you are agreeing with us.
Insaniak wrote:if I think a model is going to be a problem, I would point it out before the game, when we're comparing armies.
Exactly this.
EVIL INC wrote:I don't want to be accused of MFA when I know perfectly well I did not.
Nobody does, and that is perfectly understandable. But if you are not MFA, then forfeiting any advantages given by the model's altered state is perfectly agreeable.
Example Situation of a Non-MFA Player wrote:
Player 1: That converted Dreadnought is cool, but it looks a bit too tall.
Player 2: Yeah, I scratchbuilt the legs.
Player 1: I'm not comfortable with it having the ability to gain LOS over things it wouldn't otherwise.
Player 2: Oh of course, we'll count it as the same height as a regular Dreadnought. I put an Aquila on its sarcophagus that is level with normal Dreadnought LOS for that exact reason.
Example Situation of an MFA Player wrote:
Player 1: That converted Dreadnought is cool, but why are its guns on top?
Player 2: No reason.
Player 1: I'm not comfortable with it having the ability to shoot over things it couldn't otherwise.
Player 2: But that's a core element of my strategy!
EDIT:
EVIL INC wrote:autistic
I apologise, I didn't realise. Knowing this, I will attempt to interpret your posts more openly.
When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.
Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.
If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?
The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.
I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.
If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.
So now you are going to resort to boldface lying, plausible deniability and bullying people who may not know enough about identifying models for an in-game advantage... Bravo... And anyone who calls you on being a liar or faking your "I don't know where this model originated from so it must be legal" names, that completes the scenario perfectly.
You want to use fantasy goblins as 40k grots? Fine, just don't claim any advantages from using models which don't match the size of the stock models. Your excuses are insulting and pathetic to claim you can just use a fantasy crew as a legal model because it says "grot" on it. You are being purposefully obtuse as you know which models are 40k Gretchen, and the approximate size of them. Using one on his tippy togs from a totally different game and model line is beyond the pale of sportsmanship and respecting your opponent.
And there are legal crew. So if you want to use other models to "counts as" then you need models of approximate size and shape, which tippy toes goblins are not, especially when combining your proxies with ADLs.
WOW someone sure got her panties all wadded up on that one. Too funny. Again I ask you prove that GW never, ever sold a blister labeled Gretchin that didn't contain that model. So you are again atating it is illegal to use a model that looks like a grot, has a GW tab that says it is a Grot as a .......wait for it..........grot. What is next? Are you going to bitch about someone playing Imperial Guard and using Morsian HWTs and Cadian Lasgunners? I'll not sink to your level of petty name calling, but you are more than welcome to reply when you grow up and gain some maturity. Until then feel free to continue eating dinner at the little kids table..
Aww come on now. Isn't more fun to watch someone pop a gasket as they resort to throwing a fit and begin petty name calling when asked why it is illegal to play the game by the rules with models designed for that use?
Boss GreenNutz wrote: Aww come on now. Isn't more fun to watch someone pop a gasket as they resort to throwing a fit and begin petty name calling when asked why it is illegal to play the game by the rules with models designed for that use?
Your boldface lies to claim that your fantasy spear chukka was never sold as a 40k gretchin shows a level of gamesmanship and unethical ness to gain an advantage. You are parodying yourself by claiming the very plausible deniability which makes you TFG. How is using a fantasy model in 40k "a model designed for that use." That statement is a lie and you know it. Calling you on lying doesn't constitute a "fit".
When you are cheating and lying to gain an advantage in a game, and think you are proud of how clever your "prove it never existed" argument is, what do you expect? Fantasy spear chukker grot on tippy toes is not and was never a 40k model. I own literally every 40k grot released in oiler, rigger, gorkamorka, crew and Gretchen form. I can identify where every grot came from. I know what is stock and what is a "stand in". To tell me otherwise makes you a liar and a cheater by definition, all to gain an advantage in game.
So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.
Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.
And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.
Boss GreenNutz wrote: So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.
Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.
And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.
I purchased some Space Marine models from Forgeworld. My SM codex says that the models are "space marines." So I can use them in a game to represent models in my units, right? They are all clearly labeled "space marine," after all.
Knowingly making false statements is lying. Being the person lying makes you a liar.
You are asking to prove something which cannot be proved because it would require me to know the status of every metal model for the history of. GW models.
I can tell you that model was never sold as a 40k model. That is fact. The 5th edition spear chuckerhad 2 crew, one bench pressing a bolt, and one reaching up to pull a lever on the bolt thrower. It has only ever been sold as a fantasy model and with that kit. To claim "you can't prove it was never sold as a 40k model" is absurdity. This model was never repurposed from another kit the way other kits were. It has only ever been released as a fantasy bolt thrower kit. You never got one in a 40k Gretchen blister. To say you did is a lie.
You goal to find one model to see over the aDL so in turn all your models can is cheating.
So you state you can not prove something yet in the same sentence state that which you knowingly can not prove as fact and someone asking you to prove it is the one lying. Good one. I'll let you post again so you can get the last word in as that seems to be so important to you.
That rule is for WHFB walls, not 40K. 40K 's walls and barricades don't mention it, nor do Defense Lines (which are walls and barricades with +2 cover if you GtG behind them)
Boss GreenNutz wrote: So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.
Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.
And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.
I purchased some Space Marine models from Forgeworld. My SM codex says that the models are "space marines." So I can use them in a game to represent models in my units, right? They are all clearly labeled "space marine," after all.
It was a discussion from a couple of editions back... Someone pointed out that since there was nothing in the book specifying that you had to use 40K models, you could use an Epic Whirlwind to make it easier to hide behind terrain or other models.
This is not a contribution to the official argument but highly related.
I have been thinking about this and in the casual setting, I've thought of what I feel would be a neat house rule using a lot of the discussion in this thread. The rule would be if a model can't see at eye level over the barricade/adl/etc, if they're in base contact they can still shoot over but only snap shots to represent holding the gun over and spraying at your enemy without really having a good view. How many times have we seen this kind of scene in movies/tv, or playing laser tag, or playing paintball? What do you guys think?
If we are talking house rules, they should have just kept the 5th edition rules for barriers. It would quickly resolve any LoS issues with a blanket abstraction. Right now, it really screws "prone" heavy weapons teams for no real reason.
But house rules and issues with 6th is a different discussion.
insaniak wrote: It was a discussion from a couple of editions back... Someone pointed out that since there was nothing in the book specifying that you had to use 40K models, you could use an Epic Whirlwind to make it easier to hide behind terrain or other models.
a lot of people (and shops) put their buildings on tiles to add support to the building and add debri around it to make it look realistic.
if you have done this, there is nothing to stop you from setting it up behind the wall so that if you put the grot on the tile it could possibly see over. of course, then, people will accuse you of MFA on the buildings as the tile did not come as part of the actual building in the box set lol.
There would also be setting it up on or in front of a hill slope so that what is behind the wall is slightly higher.
someone else, I believe also mentioned setting the gun up at one of the ends of the wall so that a single grot can stand out to the side of the wall with an unobstructed view and still be in base contact with the gun.
A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.
EVIL INC wrote: a lot of people (and shops) put their buildings on tiles to add support to the building and add debri around it to make it look realistic.
if you have done this, there is nothing to stop you from setting it up behind the wall so that if you put the grot on the tile it could possibly see over.
Actually there is, Terrain needs to be at least 3 inches form fortifications or other terrain, so this will limit this kind of setup.
EVIL INC wrote: A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.
RAW the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than X" from any other fortification (note that it is part of the same fortification as the ADL wall, so this only refers to enemy fortifications or double FOC). As you noticed, the rule on having sections forming a single unbroken chain applies only to the wall, not to the gun, and there are no rules, other than the universal ones which apply to all fortifications, that cover placing the gun.
However, many people feel that this is a mistake in the rules and will object if you place the gun "too far away" according to their personal opinion of how far is "reasonable". And of course you can never set the gun up in a ruin because fortifications are placed before terrain is on the table and the gun will obviously count as part of a fortification for measuring the minimum distance between terrain and fortifications.
EVIL INC wrote: A side note, I always stick the gun behind the wall because itjust seems kinda the right thing to do. However, I have seen players set the gun up in totally different places even up inside of ruins because the faq says the wall sections have to touch but not the gun. What is the official view on this? If it is legal, you could just set the gun up in a ruin or behind something lower that a grot CAN see over so it can fire it.
RAW the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than X" from any other fortification (note that it is part of the same fortification as the ADL wall, so this only refers to enemy fortifications or double FOC). As you noticed, the rule on having sections forming a single unbroken chain applies only to the wall, not to the gun, and there are no rules, other than the universal ones which apply to all fortifications, that cover placing the gun..
This is not true at all.
The gun is an upgrade for the ADL, it must be placed with the ADL in base contact, just like any other part of the ADL.
Unless you are saying that I can put my Land Raider Lascannons anywhere on the table...
So to summarise that little tangent - there are two schools of thought as to how the gun is placed. Until GW decide to finish writing the rules for Fortifications, you'll have to discuss it with your opponent.
There's really no need to dredge up the whole 'upgrades do/do not have to be touching the thing they upgrade' argument. The simple fact is we can only guess at where GW intended us to be able to place the gun.
DeathReaper wrote: The gun is an upgrade for the ADL, it must be placed with the ADL in base contact, just like any other part of the ADL.
Then why did GW have to write specific rules for the ADL that explicitly require physical contact between the wall sections? If all parts of the ADL have to be in contact because they're part of the same fortification then the ADL-specific rule (and later FAQ) are completely redundant. The fact that this specific rule was necessary is a pretty decisive argument that fortifications function like units and their components are separate "models".
Unless you are saying that I can put my Land Raider Lascannons anywhere on the table...
That's a completely different situation and you know it. The LCs are a weapon that is part of a model, so they must be attached to that model as shown in the instructions for assembling the model. The gun on an ADL is a separate "model" that is part of a "unit".
We had players putting 2 sections over here, another 2 over there and a large section in the middle great distances apart. When they wrote the rules originally, I am assuming that they had simply not taken into account that players would do that and fixed it in the FAQ.
if you look at the example in the book, you will notice that the gun is not touching the wall sections at all.and it would be harder to picture it for the book if they had deployed it somewhere else. PERSONALLY, I place it behind the wall because the wall gives it better protection than a wooded area and I can just have who ever is manning the walls fire it as well.
Good call on the terrain being 3 inches away. I had overlooked that because the tables are usually pre set at the shop when I playthere and they are lax on it.
TheLionOfTheForest wrote: Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.
Surely the 'reasonable' player is the one who doesn't expect his opponent to ignore the LOS rules just so he can shoot over an obstacle that is taller then the models he is trying to shoot with...?
you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.
EVIL INC wrote: you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.
His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.
The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.
I don't know if you are allow shoot over three story building instead if your opposition try shoot over less than 18mm tall wall while they are kneeling or prone include this cute gretchin.. That would be massive daft ever I've heard.
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
?
WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?
(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
?
WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?
(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."
It did use TLoS with a few exceptions. It just never called it True Line of Sight.
Saldiven wrote: WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?
Yes, it actually did. Sure, there were other things to take into account but you absolutely used the model's eyes to determine what it could see. They just didn't call it "TLOS".
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
?
WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?
(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."
100% incorrect. You have simply listed the exceptions to the rule, while omitting the rule. It is a common misconception though - 5th was simply much more explicit in calling it TLOS
Check out pages 114-117 in the rulebook. you will see that each of the 'fortifications listed all have separate rules and statistics. The same goes for the newer ones that come with the datasheets in the box. You cant compare one to the other in many ways (seeing over them for example) because it is comparing apples to oranges. a grotmay not be able to see over a ADL while a a ogryn could. neither could see over a bastion. so in this case even mentioning the bastion is ireelevant as again, it is apples and oranges two toally different fortifictions and two totally different sets of special rules to go with them..
there comes a popint where you can go too far with the tlos in my opinion. I'll give a random example, I model a marine holding a meltagunwith a hand shading his eyes. now going by the tlos, he would be unable to snap fire at a flyer going overhead because you could draw a line from his eyes to the flyer (his hand is in the way).The same could be said about aguardsman wearing a cap with a bill on it. How do you handle banners? if a model in a unit holds a banner that is blocing los from a guy do you let him fire of not? los says he cant see the target while units ignore models within their own unit for purposes of shooting. These areples of why winning is just not THAT important to me where I am going to fool with it. At some point in time along a line, you eventually get to an extreme end where it may sound silly but it is still the same line of reasoning.
not saying which way it should be ruled, just pointing out the reason why I say (personally), if its that importat to them, I am not going to ruin everyone's day, I'll just let them do it.
It's not irrelevant - the questions was why not allow a Grot to see over something it normally can't. The response was why not allow an Ogryn to see over something it normally can't.
Terrain seems like the best option. Maybe if you have a box or something nearby, one grot could see over the wall. Then maybe that would count as the unit being able to see over the wall for the purposes of firing the gun.
Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.
So my marines can fire over the bastion in front of them? After all, it's crazy for them to bring a fortification they can't shoot over....
if using a fortification such as the bastion)you cant shoot over is so 'crazy", why was it included as one of the fortifications allowed to be taken.
You would bring the bastion, even though you cant shoot over it) because ithas other purposes and roles to play than serving as a wall to hide behind and shoot over. The reason it is a matter of apples and oranges.
Edit to add a few more examples of why it is apples and oranges.
1 the wall you are either behind or not. You can either see over it of your too short
2.the bastion you can actually deploy into or stand on top.
3. the bastion itself can be targets for shooting/ assault while with the wall, only the gun can.
4.in the bastion, the heavy bolters can be 'manned" regardless of how shot the gunners are. If there were snotlings, they could fire it. Unless I got a bad set of bastions, they don't come with levels inside to measure ho tall you have to be to use a firing port os man a heavy bolter., you as assumed to be able to fire it. the roof holds a lil semblance as to man the gun you need to be able to see the target (which makes deep striking REAL close to it can prevent an effective interceptor shot if the gunner cant see you. I've done this work mordrak.)
5. the bastion is designed to be taller in order to give a bettwe view or coverage of los across the battlefield than an ADL.
This is still going? I thought this was the exact same question as the "prone-sniper" thread.
Speaking of TLoS shenanigans, I've got a game of killteam on hold downstairs right now... in my next shooting phase I plan on firing at a scout through a toilet paper tube halfway across the table. Mwuhahahaha!
doktor_g wrote: If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...
Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.
?
WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?
(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."
100% incorrect. You have simply listed the exceptions to the rule, while omitting the rule. It is a common misconception though - 5th was simply much more explicit in calling it TLOS
I humbly contend that if there are any exceptions, then it is not TLoS.
Though, I apologize for derailing the thread with irrelevant discussions.
darkcloak wrote: This is still going? I thought this was the exact same question as the "prone-sniper" thread.
It's a little different. In the case of the prone sniper, there is at least some sort of justification (on the grounds of 'models being stuck in the same pose for the entire battle is a little silly') for allowing them to see what an otherwise identical, upright model could see...
In the case of the grots, people are, for some inexplicable reason, declaring it 'unfair' or 'unfun' for the grots to not be able to shoot over an obstacle that is taller than they are.
It's not an issue of posing, as the sniper discussion was... It's an issue of people thinking that small models should be exempt from following the LOS rules, just because.
just put a grot on the edge of the aegis to see around, or on top of the quad gun to see over...
FFS whats the big deal
thats RAW, they cant see over stuff they cant see over, and it works in your facor as only one grot per turn can be killed.... and you can still have ways to shoot your quad gun or artillary...
slightly taller models dont get to see over slightly taller walls now do theyÉ
Why would it be such a bad thing to make "orky" walls and gun/ they already have barricades (that I am assuming grots can see over).
It would be a great modeling project to make your wall match your army. After all, how many ork factories are there that mass prouce mperial walls and guns?
it would also only make sene that the ork mechs would be more worried about making bigger and louder guns and faster trucks thanmaking weedy walls for hidin behind. his means that the wall building would be left to the grots as it is not an important enough job for the orks to fool around with. I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army. In instances like this, I think it would be a matter of perspective where both sides wouhave valid reasons for their views. In that particular instance, I think the ork player would have the better agument because itwould hav been an effort to make the game amore aetheticallypleasing view y having your equipment match your army.
again, ths is only an opinion and not meant to be any sort of authority.
EVIL INC wrote: Why would it be such a bad thing to make "orky" walls and gun/ they already have barricades (that I am assuming grots can see over).
It would be a great modeling project to make your wall match your army. After all, how many ork factories are there that mass prouce mperial walls and guns?
Making your own themed ADL isn't a bad thing at all. But if you are making your own ADLspecifically so that models can se over it when they wouldn't be able to see over the proper ADL, then that is the very definition of modelling for advantage.
Grots can't shoot over an ADL. Dreadnoughts can't shoot over a rhino. Marines can't shoot over a Bastion. A player enforcing any of those things is not being unreasonable, because that is just how the game works. Insisting that models not shoot over something that blocks their LOS is no more unreasonable than insisting that models don't move 6 and a half inches instead of 6.
I'm really not seeing why this is being turned into such a big deal.
So what if I made 'themed' ADLs which were larger which blocked LOS to all my units so I can guarantee not be shot turn 1? It would be awesome to deploy all my Trukks and Battlewagons behind an ADL which blocks LOS so you can't even target me, and then I can speed forward with no fear of my vehicles being disabled in my own backfield.
I mean, it is perfectly orky right? It is themey to have orks build bigger is better walls! Theme is all that matters and we don't need consistent application of the rules and there is no such thing as MFA right? It is only MFA when you do it, and when I do it, it is 'cool theme!'
My Custom ADL will be based off a hollowed out stompa and will be 8" tall.
EVIL INC wrote: I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army.
And this is where you apply the MFA test: are you willing to count your custom model as being the same size/shape as the standard model if there is any situation where you would gain an advantage over the standard model? If so, you're making a cool model because it looks cool. If you insist on gaining the advantage then it is MFA. And based on your description of the process it's pretty clear that you are intending to gain an advantage from the non-standard size/shape of the model.
I have ask about this. Everyone said that was model for advance and they will said this wall was not aegis defence line but a pre-place terrain that they would want go to their side or remove it.. Look like everyone in this topic love say "model for advance"
And if you made your homemade aegis defence line that was match theme and match scale as real aegis defence line they would say this still not aegis defence line.. Even if it was cardboard. Silly I know...
All I know if you and your opposition are disagree with each other, I would just roll off to see who right.
Solidcrash wrote: I have ask about this. Everyone said that was model for advance and they will said this wall was not aegis defence line but a pre-place terrain that they would want go to their side or remove it.. Look like everyone in this topic love say "model for advance"
And if you made your homemade aegis defence line that was match theme and match scale as real aegis defence line they would say this still not aegis defence line.. Even if it was cardboard. Silly I know...
All I know if you and your opposition are disagree with each other, I would just roll off to see who right.
EVIL INC wrote: I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army.
And this is where you apply the MFA test: are you willing to count your custom model as being the same size/shape as the standard model if there is any situation where you would gain an advantage over the standard model? If so, you're making a cool model because it looks cool. If you insist on gaining the advantage then it is MFA. And based on your description of the process it's pretty clear that you are intending to gain an advantage from the non-standard size/shape of the model.
They don't have an official (or standard) ork ADL, they produced an imperial one but there are no stats (beyond the gun) for an ork one. So , no it would not be MFA at all. Modeled purely for coolness value that happens to have advantages and disadvantages over/worse then the imperial one.
I don't even play orks but feel that an ork player could say that and be correct.
No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?
A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?
EVIL INC wrote: you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.
His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.
The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.
We had to cross this bridge at the LGS concerning Guard HWT which are all kneeling. We allowed the HWT to shoot over and in turn be shot at. It may not be "by the rules" but we decided that not allowing units to shoot over the Aegis line was not in the spirit of the game. Someone acutally had one of the old prone sniper models.... its absurd that he cant stand up to shoot over it. its not like hes crawling all over the table during the game, the prone model just looks cool for a sniper and it seemed unreasonable that he should not be allowed to take up a sniper position behind an aegis and shoot his sniper rifle. I also have original metal ratlings... they cant see over the wall either. makes me think of the scene in The Two Tower when legolas says to Gimli ; "Do you want me to describe it to you, or shall i find you a box?" welll maybe his grots brought boxes with them to stand on.
since there is only one Aegis kit available it really strains its in game uses. If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it? We dont apply this rule to ruins or any other part of the terrain, but a purchased defense line should be appropriate for the army / units that are going to be using it. I know a lot of people stack several layers of cork under their models for a dynamic base. If he did that to all his grots, giving them TLOS, would that be MFA ? remember the sword cuts both ways, if he can see you, you can see him.
One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.
So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?
rigeld2 wrote: No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?
A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?
Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?
JinxDragon wrote: One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.
So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?
GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army. Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.
As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.
rigeld2 wrote: No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?
A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?
Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?
And how much of that is relevant?
If there's no stats for an ork one, how are you paying points for an ork one? How are you getting an ork quad gun? How are you claiming a 4+ cover when there's no rule to allow it?
rigeld2 wrote: No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?
A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?
Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?
JinxDragon wrote: One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.
So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?
GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army. Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.
As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.
Quote the entire post instead of cherry picking what you want out of it.
But yes, The part you quoted was indeed relevant. Has GW produced an "ork" version of the ADL? If not, players are forced to use an imperial one that is not designed for their army or to design their own based upon the fluff of the orks and how they would design it. the only "standards" that would apply would
1. number of sections
2. width of sections (but not the height) as end to end they can only cover a set length
3. stats of the gun and that the gun be a separate part.
4. Deployment and requirement that the sections touch.
EVIL INC wrote: Quote the entire post instead of cherry picking what you want out of it.
Your post:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 10:34:00
My post:
2013/12/04 10:29:30
Don't accuse me of cherry picking because I respond quickly. I'm not being hostile - the rest of the post wasn't there when I clicked quote.
But yes, The part you quoted was indeed relevant. Has GW produced an "ork" version of the ADL? If not, players are forced to use an imperial one that is not designed for their army or to design their own based upon the fluff of the orks and how they would design it. the only "standards" that would apply would
1. number of sections
2. width of sections (but not the height) as end to end they can only cover a set length
3. stats of the gun and that the gun be a separate part.
4. Deployment and requirement that the sections touch.
Why is the height not "standard" but everything else is? Can you cite a rule that defines that? It seems pretty arbitrary but I'm sure you wouldn't say that without a rule defining it, so please cite it.
I'm not the Hulk, but I'm thinking that possibly I too am not very likeable when angry, but then, who is?
Anyway...
IF users are unable to communicate amiably or at least politely with each other, as the rules of this site insist, then users would be better served ignoring each other, literally - as is possible here - thanks Lego!, or just not responding.
EVIL INC wrote: GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army.
If you made something simply because it looks cool, why are you offended when I ask you to play it as if it was the real model? Is it because you are relying on an advantage that your custom model gives you?
Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or
Reported. If you'll notice I spend most of my time in YMDC. It's more odd for me to not post in a YMDC thread than it is for me to post in one. In fact, I have responded to more people than just you in this very thread.
because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.
That's pretty disingenuous - I don't care about any disadvantages. The fact (not opinion) is that you are trying to get something to work using a custom model that can not happen with a stock model. I don't care that I can fire back at the grots - using your "ork ADL" they get a 4+ cover save. Using actual models they get no cover save because they can't shoot over the wall. Even your "disadvantage" is an advantage.
As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.
I'm not a jackass. And if they did it purely for coolness value and/or for theme, why does it matter if the grots can see over it or not?
I think that crafting an Ork-made ADL which has portholes or slightly lower viewholes in order for Grots to be able to use it is perfectly fine. I don't think it qualifies as modeling for advantage.
The ADL sold by GW is an Imperial ADL. It's not designed for or by Orks. This has never stopped the Orks or any other army from making variations on GW models. Just look at Looted Wagons. No one suggests that Orks HAVE to use a Leman Russ for a Looted Wagon.
An ADL designed BY Orks should be able to be USED by Orks. It would be just silly for Orks to design an ADL that Grots wouldn't be able to see over. Heck, the Grots are the ones the Orks probably have BUILDING the thing in the first place! Claiming that Orks should get less of an advantage from using the ADL than any other codex is unfair to the Ork player who spent the points for the ADL, just because the only GW model happens to be the Imperial model, and sized to Imperial Infantry. Not many codexes that I can think of have models who can't see over the ADL. Orks do. Yet Orks still pay the 50 points for the model. Their infantry units should be able to use it just as effectively as any other army that pays 50 points for the privilege. How is it fair that a Tau player can pay 50 points for an ADL when 99.9% of its models can see over it, but Orks have an entire line of Troops who can't, yet still pay 50 points? An Orky-designed ADL that Grots can see over isn't modeling for advantage, it's modeling to get the same value out of the barricade that all other codexes enjoy.
The ADL is an infantry barricade. Modeling it such that your infantry can use it for its intended purpose doesn't qualify as modeling for advantage.
Saying that this is the same as modeling it to be 8" high and hiding tanks behind it is simply a straw-man argument.
In my games, I use the "Ork Barricades" GW terrrain models as my ADL. They're perfectly Orky, and no one has ever had an issue with me using them as an ADL. Some barricades are a lot higher than others, and there are sections that Grots can't see over, and other sections they can.
I will say though that if you bring the standard GW model for the Imperial ADL, you need to place it in such a way that your Grots can see over it. You can't break the TLoS rules and imagine that the Grots can see over it. However, if you model your own ADL that your Grots can see over, then more power to you.
Thank you. There is no reason we cant just get along. The standard width of the ADL is obvious for reasons that without it, we would have ADLs that are 6 feel long when deployed otherwise.
personally, I feel that when building or converting something that has a set "general purpose", the the builder/converter build it so that it serves the set general purpose it is designed for for their army. the one produced is an imperial guard one designed for imperial guard and should (I feel) be a guideline. How high does it reach on the model it was designed to hide? I feel that an army that has one custom build and converted to match the army and it's fluff should reach the same height on the guys who are designed to stand behind it. This is not done for any advantage (in the case of the grots, it would actually be a DIS-advantage. Again, Personally, to me it's only a game and no reason to get bent out of shape even it is it's wrong because fun, fluff and the "imagery are more important than the fine print.
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
EVIL INC wrote: The standard width of the ADL is obvious for reasons that without it, we would have ADLs that are 6 feel long when deployed otherwise.
So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling?
personally, I feel that when building or converting something that has a set "general purpose", the the builder/converter build it so that it serves the set general purpose it is designed for for their army. the one produced is an imperial guard one designed for imperial guard and should (I feel) be a guideline. How high does it reach on the model it was designed to hide? I feel that an army that has one custom build and converted to match the army and it's fluff should reach the same height on the guys who are designed to stand behind it. This is not done for any advantage (in the case of the grots, it would actually be a DIS-advantage. Again, Personally, to me it's only a game and no reason to get bent out of shape even it is it's wrong because fun, fluff and the "imagery are more important than the fine print.
As I've pointed out - it's not a disadvantage.
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
Perhaps you missed the point of this sub-forum. Posting here means you want to discuss rules. The rules have been pointed out
So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling?
Yes. And there actually is a good reason why a customized ADL should have a standard width and not a standard height.
In terms of width, all GW models that come on bases are a uniform length. All codex units share the same bases. The only exceptions to this are the few models out there who don't need to be on bases, such as the Soul Grinder.
This means that no matter which army you play, as long as the ADL is the same width, every army will be able to place the same number of units behind it. All armies are equal.
However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
Please try to respect the mods.
GW is famous/infamous for having ambiguous rules or having rules that need interpretations and FAQs. If you go to their website, you will even find a section for it.
As GW has not produced an "rk", or "chaos", or "elder" and so forth ADL model, any model used by a player using any of those armies is by definition a proxy or conversion or whatever you want to call it. If the elder model can see over it to fire , you could claim "that's MFA".
How is it a disadvantage? Well, I hate to tell you this but getting shot at is usually a disadvantage. If you don't believe me on this, speak to ANYONE in the armed forces.
I am not the only ones pointing these out, There are MANY others throughout the thread making the same case I am. Is there a particular reason your singling out ONLY my posts? Or do you agree with them when it is someone else making the theoretical case but not when I make it?
As I said before...
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
Murrdox wrote: However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
Fluffwise, sure. But do you have a rules basis for having a standard width and not a standard height? Heck, what about armies like GK or DA - where it's trivial and common to have only Terminators. You can't fit the same number of Terminators behind an ADL as you can IG troops, so we need a wider ADL. Tyranids - My Tervigons get no cover from an ADL, so I should be able to model it high enough to cover that. Thanks for the permission.
Not all codex units share the same bases, so your basis is flawed meaning anything derived from it is flawed.
GW is famous/infamous for having ambiguous rules or having rules that need interpretations and FAQs. If you go to their website, you will even find a section for it.
As GW has not produced an "rk", or "chaos", or "elder" and so forth ADL model, any model used by a player using any of those armies is by definition a proxy or conversion or whatever you want to call it. If the elder model can see over it to fire , you could claim "that's MFA".
Not if an eldar model could shoot over a normal ADL.
How is it a disadvantage? Well, I hate to tell you this but getting shot at is usually a disadvantage. If you don't believe me on this, speak to ANYONE in the armed forces.
With standard ADL - cannot see without being shot at with no cover.
With modified ADL - can see, shoot, etc. and have a 4+ cover.
Hmmm.... seems like an advantage to me.
I am not the only ones pointing these out, There are MANY others throughout the thread making the same case I am. Is there a particular reason your singling out ONLY my posts? Or do you agree with them when it is someone else making the theoretical case but not when I make it?
No, I've responded to all the ones I noticed that have made off the wall statements like "standard width is fine but there's no reason to have a standard height" (paraphrased)
As I said before...
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
Murrdox wrote: However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
Fluffwise, sure.
But do you have a rules basis for having a standard width and not a standard height?
Heck, what about armies like GK or DA - where it's trivial and common to have only Terminators. You can't fit the same number of Terminators behind an ADL as you can IG troops, so we need a wider ADL.
Tyranids - My Tervigons get no cover from an ADL, so I should be able to model it high enough to cover that. Thanks for the permission.
Not all codex units share the same bases, so your basis is flawed meaning anything derived from it is flawed.
First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds. You know that there are no hard and fast rules for this, so suggesting that a conversion is against the rules when there are no specific rules governing conversions is simply illogical. You could basically use this same argument to invalidate ANY conversion if your argument was, in fact, valid.
And all codex units DO share the same bases. A Tyranid army will be able to fit X number of 1" bases behind an ADL. A Grey Knights army will be able to fit the same number of 1" bases behind the ADL. It's equal. You are attempting to change the point of the argument, which again isn't valid. Nobody has argued that you should be able to customize the length of the ADL depending on what infantry models that you bring, which is what you're using as a counterpoint. So again, that's a straw-man argument.
Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height. Unless you can point out the page number where it gives those exact measurements......
Otherwise, it is as the bastions and so forth and is "as modeled".
As grots building someone that they can shoot over if perfectly fluffy and a good modeling project, no one can say it is MFA as it is actually evened out by the DISadvantages and purely done in keeping with the fluff of the army. Until GW releases an ork ADL, that is just how it is. However, like I said, it is best to discuss it within your own gaming group first.
Murrdox wrote: First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds. You know that there are no hard and fast rules for this, so suggesting that a conversion is against the rules when there are no specific rules governing conversions is simply illogical. You could basically use this same argument to invalidate ANY conversion if your argument was, in fact, valid.
The assertion was that modifying an ADL (or building your own) is fine and doesn't have to be held to any standard because there are no rules for an ork ADL, only for an Imperial one. So really it comes down to modeling for advantage. By definition, you are creating a model different from the standard one to get something that wouldn't otherwise work. That's an advantage.
And all codex units DO share the same bases. A Tyranid army will be able to fit X number of 1" bases behind an ADL. A Grey Knights army will be able to fit the same number of 1" bases behind the ADL. It's equal. You are attempting to change the point of the argument, which again isn't valid. Nobody has argued that you should be able to customize the length of the ADL depending on what infantry models that you bring, which is what you're using as a counterpoint. So again, that's a straw-man argument.
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases? But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height. Unless you can point out the page number where it gives those exact measurements......
Otherwise, it is as the bastions and so forth and is "as modeled".
As grots building someone that they can shoot over if perfectly fluffy and a good modeling project, no one can say it is MFA as it is actually evened out by the DISadvantages and purely done in keeping with the fluff of the army. Until GW releases an ork ADL, that is just how it is. However, like I said, it is best to discuss it within your own gaming group first.
The bolded is demonstrably false... since I (and others) have said that in this thread.
EVIL INC wrote: Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height.
But that's not strictly true, is it? I can take a Leman Russ tank and stick an extra turret on top of it to change the height. I can customize the weapons on my Deff Dread to be different lengths and in different poses. I can put a Terminator on a decorative base that makes him stand .25" taller than other Terminators.
All these conversions are perfectly legal, they potentially affect the measurements taking place during the game, and there are no exact measurements for what any model "should" be. The only rule guidelines really is that a model should fit on the base that it's made for. Really the only conversions that are "illegal" are models that go against the "spirit" of the model. Putting a model on a much larger or smaller base than it is meant to go on, for example. Or making gun barrels extremely long to get a distinct range advantage.
The ADL is designed to be an infantry barricade. Customizing it to suit the short infantry models in your army doesn't violate the spirit of the conversion. It's still an infantry barricade, and you still can fit the same number of models behind it as any other army. Only now, your army can use it for its intended purpose... which is for infantry to stand behind it and shoot. If that's not keeping in with the spirit of a model conversion, I'm not sure what is.
Murrdox wrote: The ADL is designed to be an infantry barricade. Customizing it to suit the short infantry models in your army doesn't violate the spirit of the conversion. It's still an infantry barricade, and you still can fit the same number of models behind it as any other army. Only now, your army can use it for its intended purpose... which is for infantry to stand behind it and shoot. If that's not keeping in with the spirit of a model conversion, I'm not sure what is.
If Grots were the only Ork infantry I'd agree.
They're not. They aren't even the primary Ork infantry.
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
It really it not a straw man argument, making an ADL really tall just to block Line of Sight, is just as much MFA as making it shorter to let something shoot over it that could not previously shoot over it.
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
If GW wanted all 'infantry' regardless of size to use the ADL and gain a cover save while being able to shoot they could have said: "Infantry models in BtB with the ADL may fire unobstructed across the ADL."
Making up 'spirit' of the rules to determine fluff and intent is not possible... And there is a problem when two people have the same unit, same models and paid the same points but one works drastically different and gains an advantage simply because they modeled it differently. Discussing other examples of custom height of models and ADLs to gain advantage is not a strawman because it is happening.
If this means Tourneys and clubs need to clarify and enforce 'No grots/haflings can fire over an ADL regardless how it is modeled to prevent abusive modeling' as part of their no MFA statement they all have, so be it. Same with Rifleman Dreds on 1" tall cinematic bases shooting over rhinos. MFA is MFA no matter how many Ouija boards you get out and divine the true 'spirit' of the game to justify abuse.
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
Ugh read my post at the top of the page again!
The ADL is an infantry barricade. It costs 50 points. The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.
Most armies have roughly Imperial-sized infantry, so are thus able to use it for its intended purpose with no issue.
Orks have a substantial amount of infantry (and I know a lot of Ork players that would disagree with you that Grots are not a huge part of the Ork army) that do not conform to the Imperial infantry standard size, yet they are still infantry.
Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage. It is a conversion that keeps with the spirit of the base model, accounting for the fact that the Imperial ADL is not designed for Orks.
Murrdox wrote: The ADL is an infantry barricade. It costs 50 points. The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.
I do not see the issue here. It is the Official GW model if they wanted to make it taller or shorter they would have.
Most armies have roughly Imperial-sized infantry, so are thus able to use it for its intended purpose with no issue.
Orks can see over it just fine.
Orks have a substantial amount of infantry (and I know a lot of Ork players that would disagree with you that Grots are not a huge part of the Ork army) that do not conform to the Imperial infantry standard size, yet they are still infantry.
This point does not matter.
Also I have a lot of boys in my Ork army, not one single grot though.
Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
Same goes for Tyranids, and this is irrelevant.
An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage. It is a conversion that keeps with the spirit of the base model, accounting for the fact that the Imperial ADL is not designed for Orks.
Changing the dimensions of a GW model for the sole purpose of being able to do something you would not be able to do with the official model is the definition of MFA...
Lots of models are explicitly smaller than infantry for very real reasons.
Swarms are small so they can hide behind things Infantry can't to get to assault intact.
Halflings are small to be able to hide easier.
GW makes models which are short, and those short models have adjusted costs to make them play differently. There is no expectation all infantry should be the same size and that grots and haflings should be as tall as human/ork sized infantry.
There is also no expectation that a non-imperial ADL would have different dimensions, in fact a majority of the 3rd party ones and people converting are explicitly making them as close to the exact dimensions of the Imperial one. Why? because they want a cool model and not to have a perceived advantage or to screw other players.
That is why their custom models are not MFA but someone who makes a wall shorter for grots is.
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
Murrdox wrote: Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
A standard ADL blocks LoS from all 25mm based models in the Tyranid army. 40mm models can see over it but I'm unsure on cover (don't have an ADL to look at). Tervigons - a troop unit and essentially infantry - don't benefit whatsoever.
Asking Tyranids to pay 50 points for something they cannot fully benefit from is actually a penalty as well.
One model type in your army isn't a reason to change the height of a stock model just to benefit. It's literally the definition of modeling for advantage.
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
By your loose definition of modeling for advantage, all these models are illegal?
I maintain that the Imperial ADL is designed to fit Imperial infantry models. An Ork ADL would be designed to fit Ork infantry models, including Grots. Thus I don't think it's modeling for advantage to convert one to be so.
I suppose you're free to disagree, but I think your interpretation of conversion rules would make most conversions illegal.
Murrdox wrote: Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
A standard ADL blocks LoS from all 25mm based models in the Tyranid army. 40mm models can see over it but I'm unsure on cover (don't have an ADL to look at). Tervigons - a troop unit and essentially infantry - don't benefit whatsoever.
Asking Tyranids to pay 50 points for something they cannot fully benefit from is actually a penalty as well.
One model type in your army isn't a reason to change the height of a stock model just to benefit. It's literally the definition of modeling for advantage.
I would similarly argue that if a Tyranid player wanted to model an ADL that his Gaunts could fire over, that would be just fine.
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
If you repeatedly abused the fact that there is a height advantage, I'd call foul. Otherwise they're fine - as long as they looked good.
Since the main reason given throughout this entire thread is to gain a (significant) advantage it's not okay.
What it really boils down to is what the ruling on it is from the OP's gaming club and the ruling of his local TO.. We can sit here and pointificate till the cows come home and accomplish nothing (especially since the disadvantages gained by converting to actually make the ADL follow the fluff far outweigh and supposed advantages).
Both sides have valid arguments and going back and forth telling the other that everything the say is invalid is just a thinly veiled excuse prolong "hostilities" that should not be there in the first place.,
I suppose you're free to disagree, but I think your interpretation of conversion rules would make most conversions illegal.
Most conversions *ARE* illegal and almost all require opponents consent. And if there is a question where an conversion is harming the rules of the game, then the solution is to use a stock model or measurement for comparison. The entire game works on opponents consent and if you are basically cheating, the game ends.
Most people who convert make an effort to not take an advantage or minimize the impact by making them the same size of the stock model. Those who don't and scream "gamers rights" are the first to have people decline games and models disqualified at tourneys.
Looted wagons, while you have the option of variety, doesn't allow you to build a looted wagon any size you want. You cannot build a looted wagon the size of a monolith and block LOS to 3 BWs simply because you want to. To be a good 'counts as' the vehicles stats, armor and size is based upon that of a Rhino/Chimera/Russ. If you use any of those, you will probably be fine. If you take a Russ, make it twice as wide, add a 12" tower with a turret to it, don't expect to get leeway.
For Stock BWs, just like Land raiders, you have weapon point options. Turret on turret is a valid placement the same way front or back side doors on a LR.
If your looted wagon looks like it was done to abuse rules, people will call you on it and refuse to play you.
So you are saying that any model that is converted for any reason whatsoever is cheating along with using any non-standard non-citadel model or anything used. Even when it is done purely for creativity and offers more disadvantages than any supposed advantages. Your stance is duly noted.
Again, our "consensus" not that there ever will be one because some like to argue just for the sake of arguing does not mean a jot to his private gaming group (unless you plan to personally go there and force your personal views on them. So it is THIER views that make a difference and not ours. Likely, the op has already figured that out for himself and we are all talking just to hear ourselves talk.
EVIL INC wrote: you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.
His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.
The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.
We had to cross this bridge at the LGS concerning Guard HWT which are all kneeling. We allowed the HWT to shoot over and in turn be shot at. It may not be "by the rules" but we decided that not allowing units to shoot over the Aegis line was not in the spirit of the game. Someone acutally had one of the old prone sniper models.... its absurd that he cant stand up to shoot over it. its not like hes crawling all over the table during the game, the prone model just looks cool for a sniper and it seemed unreasonable that he should not be allowed to take up a sniper position behind an aegis and shoot his sniper rifle. I also have original metal ratlings... they cant see over the wall either. makes me think of the scene in The Two Tower when legolas says to Gimli ; "Do you want me to describe it to you, or shall i find you a box?" welll maybe his grots brought boxes with them to stand on.
since there is only one Aegis kit available it really strains its in game uses. If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it? We dont apply this rule to ruins or any other part of the terrain, but a purchased defense line should be appropriate for the army / units that are going to be using it. I know a lot of people stack several layers of cork under their models for a dynamic base. If he did that to all his grots, giving them TLOS, would that be MFA ? remember the sword cuts both ways, if he can see you, you can see him.
The HWT can see over the low sections, through the V in the connection between sections, and through the slots of the Tall Sections on their own.
The kneeling models are Head and Shoulders above the low section.
You are correct that Ratlings cannot see over the Wall. The solution to this is not to put them behind the wall.
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
If you repeatedly abused the fact that there is a height advantage, I'd call foul. Otherwise they're fine - as long as they looked good.
Since the main reason given throughout this entire thread is to gain a (significant) advantage it's not okay.
By your definition a customized model is a significant advantage.
By my definition a customized model is actually getting the full benefit from the 50 points the Ork player has paid for the ADL, because just like the Looted Wagon, there IS no ADL model for the Ork army.
Just like the Looted Wagon, an Ork player can plop down a Leman Russ tank with an Ork paintjob. Or an Ork player can customize the hell out of it, and it can be one inch shorter or taller, or it can have a turret or not have a turret. It can have sponsons or it can have hull mounted weapons.
If an Ork can do all that to a Leman Russ and still be able to play with it, you want to say that lowering a couple sections of an ADL by 1/4" or putting portholes in it at Grot level crosses the line? Especially when it's fully within the fluff of what an Ork army would actually put on the field?
I think I've made my point, you're not going to agree with it, but there you go.
No, there is an ADL for orks - the one pictured in the rule book. There just isn't one that is specifically for your army.
By making an ADL expressly to allow you to do something you couldn't do before, you are modelling for advantage. No amount of semantics will avoid that.
TheLionOfTheForest wrote: If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it?
He doesn't have an orkish defense line, though. At this point in time, the game only includes Imperial fortifications, which are available to all armies. So the Ork commander finds himself with an Imperial defense line, and grots that can't see over it. Which leaves two choices - put the grots behind a wall they can't see over, or put the grots somewhere else and use the wall for some other purpose.
So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling?
Yes. And there actually is a good reason why a customized ADL should have a standard width and not a standard height.
In terms of width, all GW models that come on bases are a uniform length. All codex units share the same bases. The only exceptions to this are the few models out there who don't need to be on bases, such as the Soul Grinder.
This means that no matter which army you play, as long as the ADL is the same width, every army will be able to place the same number of units behind it. All armies are equal.
However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
No, there is no good reason why you should be able to alter 1 dimension without being able to alter the other 2 dimensions.
In fact you should make your scratch-built ADL compliant in all 3 dimensions and should all be the same dimensions.
If you want to start claiming that you can alter 1 dimension then you should be able to alter all 3, and if you able alter all 3; then the final scratch-built should be the same Volume.
So if I can alter 1 dimension I should have to alter the other 2; leading to me allowed to feild an ADL that is made from 1 mil plasticard 1/2" tall and with 2' long long sections; right?
And the Orks can still fully benefit from their 50point Citadel ADL; just the grots cannot fire over it, 90% of the rest of the codex benefit just fine. (even the grots benefit by being out of LOS, able to sit on an objective without fear of reprisal).
What page is the ork ADL pictured on? The only one I have seen is an imperial one used as an example. if they HAVE produced an ADL designed specifically for orks, I'm sure most ork players would love to check it out. If you cant find the page number, give us the link to it on the GW site. The only I've seen there is an imperial one and as some have said, using an imperial one for an ork army is cheating as it would be a conversion or counts as.
The closest I have seen are the ork barricades and I am greatly interested to also see the official representation of the guns made by orks that comes with it. I'll be anxious to see the official ork version of the bastion, landing platform and fortress of redemption as well because currently, we only have the imperial examples of them.
"So the question then becomes - On what basis do you assume that this was not a deliberate design decision by GW? " This should be fairly easy to clear up. Dakka Dakka is a large website dedicated to the hobby and I am sure that at least one member of the GWdev teams has found their way here at one point in time or another. An officialy rules clarification sent to Jervis or someone else high up in GW would get us an official statement. We would only need to ask ...
1. Are conversions/counts as/ and so forth allowed in games if they are done for coolness value and to keep the model in keeping with the fluff of the army? in this instance so that a model such as the ADL may serve the same purpose for the army that the imperial guard ADL serves the imperial guard. they would only need to give us a "yes you can" or a "no you cant".
Even so, a local gaming club has the right to have house rules that gainsay the official answer that we get from GW. Until then we are just a bunch of gamers squabbling/quibbling over different vies and interpretations.
Murrdox wrote: First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds
They used to. Not so much these days. Seriously, pick up the latest Chaos Codex (the army most open for conversions) ... have a look through the model gallery in there, and see how many conversions you can find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murrdox wrote: The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.
Is it?
Or is it designed for every army and just modelled off an Imperial design?
Again, on what basis are you making this assumption?
Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
Sure. But is it an unintentional one, or did GW not intend for every army to be able to make full use of the ADL with every type of infantry they have access to?
An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage.
If you modify a fortification in a way that allows you to shoot with a model that would otherwise be unable to do so, that's pretty much the definition of modelling for advantage.
You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that GW intended for every unit to be able to benefit equally from the ADL. The obvious response to that was that if they really intended for that, given the lack of army-specific ADLs, wouldn't they have just made the stock ADL a little shorter?
Show me what page the Looted Wagon is on. Show me what model I should be using for Wazdakka. Explain why I can't use Deffkoptas converted into Buggies instead of GW's 2nd Edition Ork Buggies that no one uses.
You can argue that altering the height of the dimensions of the ADL is an illegal conversion, but arguing that you can't do any conversions won't accomplish much.
There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol. Murrdox , the point I'm saying is that to use the imperial one for an ork army is cheating by the standards of who we are speaking to. They claim that to do ANY conversion of any kind is cheating. I feel that said conversions to look cool and to make a model actually fit your army is within the scope of the game. They disagree with that and claim that no matter what it is or for what reasons it is mfa (even when the disadvantages outweighth any supposed advantages) and thus cheating.
Which again, brings us back to my point of the opinions that matter are the opinions of the people you actually play with/against.
EVIL INC wrote: There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol.
No, that is the Aegis defense line , it is not Imperial Aegis Defense Line, it is simply an Aegis defense line (Page 114) (The index also says "Aegis Defence Lines...114")
No mention of Imperial in there at all, so this is available to Tyranids, Orks, Tau Etc...
There is only an ADL and it is pictured in the rulebook.
Orks can take [i]THAT[i/] ADL, Just Like they can take the Bastion Pictured in the rules, or the Skyshield Landing Pad, or the Fortress of Redemption, Or the firestorm redoubt, or the Macro Cannon, or the Vengence weapon battery, or the Aquilla Strongpoint.
There is no such thing as Ork Fortifications, just like there is no such thing as Tau fortifications, or Eldar Fortifications.
You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that GW intended for every unit to be able to benefit equally from the ADL. The obvious response to that was that if they really intended for that, given the lack of army-specific ADLs, wouldn't they have just made the stock ADL a little shorter?
I don't think that's the only basis for my argument, but it's essentially correct.
However, Ork players especially are used to being given the short-stick by GW, and we've had a very long history of making up for that by converting things on our own. Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Wazdakka, Flash Gitz, Buggies... all these are common Ork conversions which in some cases have no model, and in other cases can be modeled to fire from different angles, heights, etc.
My argument is essentially that just because there is a stock Imperial Defense Line, that doesn't necessarily mean the Orks are forbidden to customize it to suit their specific army. I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does.
Murrdox wrote: I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does..
Except, again, on what basis are you assuming that grots are intended to be able to make use of the ADL?
EVIL INC wrote: There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol.
No, that is the Aegis defense line , it is not Imperial Aegis Defense Line, it is simply an Aegis defense line (Page 114) (The index also says "Aegis Defence Lines...114")
No mention of Imperial in there at all, so this is available to Tyranids, Orks, Tau Etc...
Actually the fluff text on GW's website specifically refers to it as an Imperial Defense Line. It's not the official title of the model, but it's in there.
EVIL INC wrote: Why are so many people Against the OP having a discussion with his gaming club to see what THIER feelings on the matter are?
Nobody is against that. But unless his gaming club is participating in this thread, that discussion is completely irrelevant to this one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murrdox wrote: Actually the fluff text on GW's website specifically refers to it as an Imperial Defense Line. It's not the official title of the model, but it's in there.
That's because fluffwise it's an Imperial ADL. That's why it looks like an Imperial ADL.
Ruleswise, which is what is under discussion here, it is an ADL that is available to all armies. The race of the engineer who designed and built it is completely irrelevant to a rules discussion.
Murrdox wrote: I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does..
Except, again, on what basis are you assuming that grots are intended to be able to make use of the ADL?
Because the main purpose of the ADL is a barricade for infantry. A primary component of the infantry of the Ork army is Grots. It thus makes sense that an Ork ADL would be built to accomodate Grots.
Yes, it's not in the rules. Yes, it's a conversion. But it's an Ork conversion that allows Orks to make as much use of the ADL as any other army can, so personally I don't see a problem with it.
Murrdox wrote: Because the main purpose of the ADL is a barricade for infantry.
So?
A rhino is a transport for Infantry. Terminators are infantry... but can't ride in it.
But it's an Ork conversion that allows Orks to make as much use of the ADL as any other army can,
Orks can already make as much use of the ADL as any other army can. Any other army that has models that are too short to see over it has exactly the same issue the grots do.
Orks can already make as much use of the ADL as any other army can. Any other army that has models that are too short to see over it has exactly the same issue the grots do.
Come now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were really true. Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category, and the OP wouldn't have started this topic if it hadn't come up.
Orks obviously are at a disadvantage using the ADL compared to other armies, especially when it comes to Grot artillery. This disadvantage is not shares by the vast majority of other GW models. You must at least admit that.
Murrdox wrote: Come now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were really true.
We're having this discussion because someone questioned whether or not grots could see over an ADL.
Whether or not the ADL is as tactically useful to Orks as every other army is a completely different discussion.
Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category,...
You forgot Ratlings.
Orks obviously are at a disadvantage using the ADL compared to other armies, especially when it comes to Grot artillery. This disadvantage is not shares by the vast majority of other GW models. You must at least admit that.
The vast majority of other GW models aren't included in the army primarily to serve as a meatshield for the rest of the army... Grots aren't supposed to be hiding behind walls. They're supposed to be running in front of the boyz.
Grot artillery is indeed not able to make full use of the ADL. To be honest, I really don't see that as a big deal. The size of certain models impacts where they should be deployed. That's not exclusive to the ADL... I've been using Grot artillery for quite some time now, and I don't even have an ADL. I don't put the artillery behind a wall that taller models could see over and complain that the table is inherently biased against my army, though. I just put the grots somewhere else.
Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category,...
You forgot Ratlings.
Truth. My Ratlings can't use the ADL without some serious terrain management. And we're talking about the old 2nd edition models that are literal midgets. Rather than having them missing out on shooting, it's best to just throw them in some low area terrain with good fields of fire. Save the ADL for troops that can actually see over/through it.
Also, a demon player friend of mine brought this with him to the showcase in London 2 months ago where he got to have a sit down with Jervis for a 6th edition signing.
He brought along his ADL
Modeled like that, and Jervis said its exactly what GW wanted players to do!
Just chat with your opponent first and everything is gonna be okay!
Stormbreed
, Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.
As I said, this is why you discuss such things with the actualy people you will be playing against.
At no point in time have I EVER said discussing it here is pointless. I am only pointing out that what a bunch of gamers come up with should not be the end all be all answer. That him discussing it here, getting information, views and opionions is a good thing and a good resource that he can use when he does speak with his mates, he will be more educated and able to support his stance.
I just don't feel that this should be his ONLY source of information.
Stormbreed wrote: Modeled like that, and Jervis said its exactly what GW wanted players to do!
I don't doubt it for a second. GW have a long history of not taking their games anywhere near as seriously as their customers do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: As I said, this is why you discuss such things with the actualy people you will be playing against.
You seem to have rather missed the point of this forum.
We discuss the rules of the game here so that people can develop a better understanding of (a) how the rules actually work, (b) how people think the rules actually work and (c) how people choose to apply those rules.
That enables peope to go back to those they play with armed with all the relevant information to have that discussion. 'On Dakka, they said 'this... what do you guys think?'
Pointing out in every second post that people need to discuss things with their opponents is off topic, and pointless. Of course they need to discuss rules issues with their opponents. That doesn't invalidate the discussion here. It's the whole point of the discussion here.
EVIL INC wrote: Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.
There's no disagreement with Jervis at all on this. It's a cool model, and I think everyone here approves of making cool models. What we do not approve of is using a non-standard model to gain an in-game advantage from its non-standard size/shape. I would love to see an ork player make a custom ADL that is the exact same size/shape as the standard one, but with an "orky" appearance. But that does not mean I'm going to accept an ADL that is shorter than the standard model to allow grots to see over it, or taller than the standard model to keep vehicles out of LOS.
EVIL INC wrote: Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.
There's no disagreement with Jervis at all on this. It's a cool model, and I think everyone here approves of making cool models. What we do not approve of is using a non-standard model to gain an in-game advantage from its non-standard size/shape. I would love to see an ork player make a custom ADL that is the exact same size/shape as the standard one, but with an "orky" appearance. But that does not mean I'm going to accept an ADL that is shorter than the standard model to allow grots to see over it, or taller than the standard model to keep vehicles out of LOS.
In a fun game I can't see a reason not to accept simply agreeing to the grots being able to shoot over and be shot at, in a tournament well as I said above the TO's are gonna side on whats fair for both guys. As for some of the guys who actually write the rules/fluff ect, they actually want us to remember that the game is supposed to be a huge fluffy fun experience.
Strict RAW doesn't matter if we're not gonna ever use it, we can figure out RAW easily by reading the book
I'm going to disagree with Jervis, I think it looks terrible. But in context I don't see a problem. Most daemons can't shoot, and the ones that can shoot are tall enough to see over the stock Aegis anyway. The only thing that changes here is that you can see Nurglings over it, which is a disadvantage for the Daemon player. I guess it's also far less likely to actually provide cover to a daemon hiding behind it from an elevated shooter, but again that's a disadvantage for the Daemon player without any corresponding advantage. In the context of the Daemon army making the aegis shorter doesn't confer any advantages, so it can't be modelling for advantage.
Yes, we have seen that putting forth reasoned feelings of why a "rule" can be interpreted in different ways. is only good depending upon which person you agree with. I feel that all players should have the right to have and express their opinions. That must not be the case here.
Again, I refer to the only advice or opinion that should matter to the OP, thsat the actual players that he/she will be facing in their local gaming club (along with the local TO). As having this conversation with them is seen as such a bad idea, it looks like they will only get to see the answers of those who are in the majority.
(still on topic and still relevant saying that he should not even ask his mates after discussing it here is a bad idea and to be honest, as much as you might not want him to, he will anyway)
We have discussed to death the fact that the adl is not an ork model, that players want to deny conversions for any reason/for coolness value or not and so on and so forth to the point where we are just going about in circles.
What I notice being ignored are the tactical ways that are being given to get around the problem. That I am flamed for having the temerity to put forth because of personal issues certain people have with me unrelated to the topic or even the forum....
1. Put the gun near one side and let a single grot go out of cover where they can see and fire the gun.
2. place a piece of terrain behind the line (but still 3 inches away) that the grots can stand on and see over while still being partially obscured from many angles.
3. let the handler (don't grot grot squads come with on or independent characters have the ability to join a grot unit? and let THEM fire the gun.
4. Just put the gun somewhere else then directly behind the wall.
5. position the gun so that is has a good field of vision in the direction you want to fire it at and use the wall as protection from other directions to prevent the grots from being fired at from those directions.
6. set the wall up so that instead of being end to end, you have a line with many mini-cover spots along it where the grots will have spots to "shoot around corners"
7. Acknowledge that not being able to target the grots (outside of barrages) is actually an advantage for you and circle it about an object and let them eat beer and preztzels for the game.
Of course, no one wants to talk about the legality or viability of doing those things.
EVIL INC wrote: Again, I refer to the only advice or opinion that should matter to the OP, thsat the actual players that he/she will be facing in their local gaming club (along with the local TO). As having this conversation with them is seen as such a bad idea, it looks like they will only get to see the answers of those who are in the majority.
The bit 4 posts up where I pointed out that repeating this sort of comment was off-topic and pointless? You should probably pay attention to that.
EVIL INC wrote: I feel that all players should have the right to have and express their opinions. That must not be the case here.
Everyone does have a right. You've been allowed to express your opinion that modifying a model to gain an advantage is not MFA without any censorship. Disagreement with your argument is not censorship.
I passed the word on to those it applied to. Modeling for coolness without expecting advantages is not MFA. Feel free to go censor Jervis or Blanche or Andy Chambers.
What I notice being ignored are the tactical ways that are being given to get around the problem.
1. Put the gun near one side and let a single grot go out of cover where they can see and fire the gun.
2. place a piece of terrain behind the line (but still 3 inches away) that the grots can stand on and see over while still being partially obscured from many angles.
3. let the handler (don't grot grot squads come with on or independent characters have the ability to join a grot unit? and let THEM fire the gun.
4. Just put the gun somewhere else then directly behind the wall.
5. position the gun so that is has a good field of vision in the direction you want to fire it at and use the wall as protection from other directions to prevent the grots from being fired at from those directions.
6. set the wall up so that instead of being end to end, you have a line with many mini-cover spots along it where the grots will have spots to "shoot around corners"
7. Acknowledge that not being able to target the grots (outside of barrages) is actually an advantage for you and circle it about an object and let them eat beer and preztzels for the game
How would the rules prevent any of these things? Is there anything that might stop a player from trying any of them?
As orks are not really a "shooty army" and the shooters that can cause sizable damage are more than tall enough to see over the imperial guard wall, grots behind the wall don't really want to shoot ov er it or be seen. They are back there to claim objectives whi they can just sit there out of sight for. (don't have my ork codex handy but do they have scout?) if they have scout, an easy linebreaker unit to hide in an opponents back deployment corner out of sight (I've done this many times with penal legion, marbo or al rehem squads). So generally this is not a thing that will occur very often and is fairly easily avoided.
GW staff are not expert in interpreting rules or, uh, anything else. In their stores they can lay it down however they want to but they aren't subject matter experts, so to speak.
Ouze wrote: GW staff are not expert in interpreting rules or, uh, anything else. In their stores they can lay it down however they want to but they aren't subject matter experts, so to speak.
This is true. If there is one thing I've learned from YMDC over the years, it is that NOBODY ever has final say over the interpretation of a rule. It doesn't matter if it's a TO, or GW staff, a codex author, or if the Emporer Himself appeared before you to tell you the rule is so.
Even Ward, Cruddence, and Kelley are but vile pretenders when it comes to discussing the correct interpretation of the rules they themselves wrote.
This forum only accepts the written laws of the almighty twin Gods, BRB and FAQ.
Murrdox wrote: This is true. If there is one thing I've learned from YMDC over the years, it is that NOBODY ever has final say over the interpretation of a rule. It doesn't matter if it's a TO, or GW staff, a codex author, or if the Emporer Himself appeared before you to tell you the rule is so.
Even Ward, Cruddence, and Kelley are but vile pretenders when it comes to discussing the correct interpretation of the rules they themselves wrote.
This forum only accepts the written laws of the almighty twin Gods, BRB and FAQ.
I never said anything like that. I pointed out - correctly - that someone hired to run a cash register and stock shelves doesn't have any special insight into the mechanics of the game they sell, any more than a Toy R Us employee is somehow uniquely qualified to interpret the rules of Candyland or Monopoly.
Speaking only for myself, I'd take any of the game developer's remarks as gospel if there was a clear record of them.
What some dude at a GW store said doesn't matter as, go in next week and ask a different clerk, you're likely to get the opposite answer.
The same holds true of calling GW customer service directly. They're not intended to interpret rules for you, it seems, more just handle your issues with orders and answer general product inquiries.
Lastly, what "the guy at the store" said is an unverified, and unverifiable, statement. I could post that any given Codex author and I were hanging out at the pub (despite the fact that I live on the West Coast of the United States... stick with me here) and he told me all the ways that they intended the game to be played and I have it all written down on cocktail napkins....
... it's unverifiable. Without those authors putting that text in a publication that is available to other players, it's basically my word against theirs that what I say they said was actually said.
Solidcrash wrote: I just got back from GW and speak with veteran and GW staff, they both said same thing.
"Yes you can shoot at Gretchen and Gretchen CAN shoot over Aegis Defence Line include spinefist ripper and rating.
If they still refuse to accept what you said, show them page 8 rule book. Don't worry, game tournament organizer will agree with you"
So we are right and our arc-enemy are wrong.
The answer to this topic :- yes you can. Still in trouble, show them page 8 of rule book.
See, this is a fake post. Why? Because your question and answer don't make any sense.
The grot in the picture Ouze posted CANNOT see over the ADL period. Did you ask:
*Can models which are too short can shoot even if they cannot see?
*Can I modify a grot to be taller to shoot and only taller models who have TOLS can shoot?
*Can I model an ADL to be shorter' to shoot and then TOSL applies?
*Can anyone touching the ADL shoto regardless of TLS?
*Do ADLs not block LOS so even if a grot is totally invisible behind an ADL he can be shot?
If they claim a grot can shoot over, are they applying an abstraction where all models regardless of TLOS can shoot? What rule are they saying allows OUZE's grot in the picture to shoot?
You ask wrong questions, you get worthless answers.
Random question., does the base have to be flat on the ground? We have already covered that not being able to shoot over it/ enemy not being able to see and thus shoot at you is actually an advantage for the ork player but for those unwilling to try any of the tactical ways to easily get around the issue... end rambling, the picture should above made me think, is it acceptable to put the end of the gun onto the wall? The might evevate him without MFA (eyeroll smiley) or using other artificial means. Is the ruling that all bases be flat on te ground? I've played a large variety of shops and never seen anyone coplain, edges hang in midair off of edges, some spots don't aow flat base for a lack of room and so on and so forth. never seen an official ruling on that but figured it would either be a flat yes or a flat no (pn intended).
The gun leaning up on the wall would mean he could look up in the air - but his eyes would still be below the edge of the ADL. You'd have to life him vertically in the air to see over it.
EVIL INC wrote: We have already covered that not being able to shoot over it/ enemy not being able to see and thus shoot at you is actually an advantage for the ork player...
I'm not sure that you making that claim and nobody else bothering to discuss it actually counts as 'We alreadsy covered...'
... is it acceptable to put the end of the gun onto the wall? .
Whether ot is or not, it's not going to be particularly useful, since LOS is drawn from his eyes, not from the gun.
I was asking because I don't think that aspect was covered yet and raising the front MAY (don't know, I don't have grots) bring the head up enough so the eyes could see over.
I know, it was a stupid question, Seeing the visual of that particular model standing next to the wall made me think about it and my disability caused me to not be able to get that out of my mind without some sort of clarification even though it will never affect any of my games most likely.
EVIL INC wrote: ... is it acceptable to put the end of the gun onto the wall? .
Whether ot is or not, it's not going to be particularly useful, since LOS is drawn from his eyes, not from the gun.
The particular image with the particular grot ouze has shown would allow that grot to shoot the marines on the upper level of the ruins if his gun was propped up on the wall, so the question does become valid in this case.
Can we lean the ADL forward a bit using another piece of the ADL as the holder, stagger them so one is always holding up the next. It would be high enough to give 25% and he could then see over.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The particular image with the particular grot ouze has shown would allow that grot to shoot the marines on the upper level of the ruins if his gun was propped up on the wall, so the question does become valid in this case.
He could do that anyway, without being propped up on the wall.
Stormbreed wrote: Can we lean the ADL forward a bit using another piece of the ADL as the holder, stagger them so one is always holding up the next. It would be high enough to give 25% and he could then see over.
I believe the bases have to be together. I've seen them not touch perfectly because of the terrain having grooves and bumps and never seen anyone complain. Some might take offence to that though.
Solidcrash - no, WHW staff - or any GW retail staff - are no more expert or an authority on the rules than anyone else. Often retail staff know less - believe it or not they often have less time to actually play the hobby than you think. I know this based on my partner being ex staff, and abotu 15 of my friends either still being staff or also being ex staff.
Its why the tenets of the forum (in the sticky at the top of this forum) only say to discuss those printed answers found in FAQs, the BRB etc - anything is unverifiable.
Solidcrash - no, WHW staff - or any GW retail staff - are no more expert or an authority on the rules than anyone else. Often retail staff know less - believe it or not they often have less time to actually play the hobby than you think. I know this based on my partner being ex staff, and abotu 15 of my friends either still being staff or also being ex staff.
Its why the tenets of the forum (in the sticky at the top of this forum) only say to discuss those printed answers found in FAQs, the BRB etc - anything is unverifiable.
Yeah they really need add this in FAQ so we all can shut up about it... Hopefully new book called strongpoint come out and sort this out once and all.
*Can models which are too short can shoot even if they cannot see?
Similar to that.. I just said
Aegis defence line -
Rule - some one said my space marine who are kneel can't shoot and use cover save.
[show GW my space marine base to base with aegis line ]
It can shoot through? Can you explain why so I can show this to him.
GW said : use spirit of the game in page 8. They can stand up and have same capabilities .
What about Gretchen? Halfing? Spinfist Ripper?
[show GW my 5th edition Gretchen with aegis]
GW said : Can shoot and line of sight. Take cover save and causal from them. They do have capabilities and dynamic pose.
I just shut up and chat about something else...
In 2009 I remember I play with veteran and have this very similar problem. Within 10 second we just unsure what going on, he just tell me to roll off to see who was correct. I lose and he won, and carry on have a great time and we are tie.
*Can I modify a grot to be taller to shoot and only taller models who have TOLS can shoot?
Nope I haven't. But in their word made me think I can change pose with capabilities. So this Gretchen can stand up straight. Should be able to see over from eyeliner.. Tiptoe may be legal!
And no, I won't ask because it would be silly.
*Do ADLs not block LOS so even if a grot is totally invisible behind an ADL he can be shot?
Yes I have, they said this aegis defence line give model a cover save nothing more. Aegis defence line are part of item just like barbwire, tank block and barrier.
If they claim a grot can shoot over, are they applying an abstraction where all models regardless of TLOS can shoot? What rule are they saying allows OUZE's grot in the picture to shoot?
You ask wrong questions, you get worthless answers.
And this.
Aegis defence line and bastion if lascannon or quad gun have line of sight on enemy but not model who manual it.. Can it still shoot?
GW: Yes they can. Camera on top of it and you have monitor beside the gunner tower.
GW said : Can shoot and line of sight. Take cover save and causal from them. They do have capabilities and dynamic pose.
But in their word made me think I can change pose with capabilities. So this Gretchen can stand up straight. Should be able to see over from eyeliner.. Tiptoe may be legal
This is not a rule anywhere. This causes the game to shut down because it is impossible to enforce. So now anyone can have a telescoping design built in to the model and claim 'dynamic pose' and totally void TLOS?
Shenanigans and lies.
And asking them is wasting your breath as your answers have zero validity regardless what they say. We are all just pointing out the futility of your questions along with the invalidity of how you ask them to get an answer which answers nothing.
Then what the hell is "spirit of the games" in page 8 rulebook for? It was in rulebook.
I do remember that someone said "don't to be Nancy" in this very topic. Nobody read his post?
And many more person have said that model are not static. So yes there are someone said that "spirit of the games"
In my gut telling me that I can use this spirit of games until house rule and tournament organizer said otherwise. If they did in middle of game I will simple accept them.
Solidcrash wrote: Then what the hell is "spirit of the games" in page 8 rulebook for? It was in rulebook.
I do remember that someone said "don't to be Nancy" in this very topic. Nobody read his post?
And many more person have said that model are not static. So yes there are someone said that "spirit of the games"
In my gut telling me that I can use this spirit of games until house rule and tournament organizer said otherwise. If they did in middle of game I will simple accept them.
So 'Page 8' covers all ignoring of the rules or doing whatever you want? One person's cheating is another persons 'spirit of the game'
Where is the 'models are dynamic' in the rulebook?
So your gut says 'I can knowingly cheat until someone calls me on it, then I will bully them by claiming spirit of the game and only stop cheating when a TO rule against me, totally disrespecting my opponents or trying to have a fair game. '
What? I don't said let bend the rule.... I am said that any model can kneel, stand, 7-1, dog style, star jump, wave, t-pose, hop on one leg and many more pose.. That was not cheat...
That Grot is standing as tall as he will likely get (and still be able to shoot with anything near accuracy) and is still far from seeing over the wall. So yes, saying he can see over is cheating.
Has anyone actually encountered these sort of WAAC players that feel like TLOS is more of a guideline than an actual rule or is this whole thread just an exercise in futility?
PrinceRaven wrote: Has anyone actually encountered these sort of WAAC players that feel like TLOS is more of a guideline than an actual rule or is this whole thread just an exercise in futility?
I have encountered the MFA people who feel like they can model grots on top of 1" tall rocks to see over an ADL as well as make Custom ADLs with grot-level holes... But those players agree that TLOS work and has no allowance for 'dynamic models' concept to pretend a model can be standing in any way it feels like regardless of the actual model.
So modifying your model to a dynamic pose to gain height and pretending it can have a dynamic pose to gain height are two different camps. One is MFA and one is making up rules.
Solid - your posts are a little hard to follow, please try to make them a little more coherent
The grot is simply not tall enough,and cannot be, to gain true line of sight. If you try to call it spirit, why is it not ok for me to call it spirit - AND THE RULES - to state you can't see? Why is your spirit, which breaks the immensely clear rules, taking precedence over mine?
Except a grot doesn't act just like a guardsman, because it's shorter.
Every model isn't supposed to have the same profile as every other. If a model can't see over am obstacle, and another model can, that's exactly how the LOS rules are supposed to work.
The IGHWT dilemma is easily solved using Mordian HWTs. Sadly you'll have to find them from alternative sources since they seem to have been removed from the GW site. The Assistant Gunners on the ones I have are standing and came that way. So definitely perfectly legal to use unless someone wants to claim they aren't 40k miniatures. I did pick mine up years ago so no one can even claim they were bought specifically to use with an AGL.
Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.
Solidcrash wrote: Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.
If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine. It's just not how the rules actually work.
As for the kneeling guardsmen, GW have had 5 editions now to clarify that kneeling, squatting, sitting or prone models should have the same LOS as their standing counterparts. They haven't. The process for establishing LOS from the model's eyes has remained more or less the same for 20 years now.
But that still has nothing to do with models that are simply too short to see over an obstacle.
Solidcrash wrote: Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.
If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine.
Thank you, yeh I like how it work. And more fun as space hulk.
Your rule you mean. I've play at Middlesbrough, Teesside, Aberdeen, Scarborough, Highlander , north island and Nottingham are using same rule as mine...
Cool... There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.
I'll have to have another look at the rulebook... I don't remember seeing an author's credit in there, but maybe I wrote it under the influence of something that also removed all memory of it...
There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.
No doubt there are. But only one of them is how the rulebook actually says to do it. The other is a house rule.
Again, that's not a problem... it's just always a good idea to know and acknowledge when the rules you are using are different to how the game actually works, to reduce the potential for confusion when you play someone new.
Solidcrash wrote: Your rule you mean. I've play at Middlesbrough, Teesside, Aberdeen, Scarborough, Highlander , north island and Nottingham are using same rule as mine...
Cool... There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.
Show me the rule that overrides TLoS and allows models to use a 'dynamic moving pose' rather than the model's actual pose to determine their LoS. Page number and paragraph from the Warhammer 40k rulebook, please.
Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.
In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.
Turn out that few people do not imagine or creative.. Then this "spirit of the games" do not apply to them.
And someone in this topic said that Games Workshop can made up their mind about rule. Then I am with GW side..
"You have no power in here!"
Maybe that is why I am use their house rule from GW store since 1991.
Then there are 50/50 who are correct. I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.
And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line, that may mean you can made up your mind about this and agree with your player.
Have a fun with wargame. Do not made enemy at game board is my motto.
EVIL INC wrote: Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.
Solidcrash wrote: In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.
Please follow the rules of YMDC. GW's various statements about "don't take it seriously" are completely off-topic in a forum dedicated to understanding what the rules actually say.
I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.
No, you just don't understand what you're talking about. If someone asks "what do the LOS rules say in this situation" then saying "the spirit of the game says you should let me shoot with everything because it isn't fair if I don't get to win" is missing the point.
Also, you're making a big assumption in claiming that "spirit of the game" applies at all. I could justifiably claim that YOU are ignoring the spirit of the game by trying to rules lawyer your way out of following the LOS rules, and the spirit of the game would be to just accept that the grots behind the ADL don't get to shoot and move on.
And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line
There aren't any rules about it because no additional rules are needed. The standard LOS rules cover this situation just fine. You only "need" extra rules if you need to invent a reason why your models get to shoot through a solid wall despite not having LOS, but that's about as relevant as my "need" to make my lasguns STR 10 AP 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.
Nope. Models in the firing unit do not block LOS, and the rule doesn't say anything about limiting it to other models in the unit. A model can draw LOS in all directions from its eyes, including through its own head to shoot behind itself.
Claiming that the spirit of the game allows you to be a WAAC player and bend the line of sight rules when it suits you is a bit of a stretch, I highly doubt that's the sort of spirit they're talking about.
Solidcrash wrote: In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.
Turn out that few people do not imagine or creative.. Then this "spirit of the games" do not apply to them.
And someone in this topic said that Games Workshop can made up their mind about rule. Then I am with GW side..
"You have no power in here!"
Maybe that is why I am use their house rule from GW store since 1991.
Then there are 50/50 who are correct. I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.
And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line, that may mean you can made up your mind about this and agree with your player.
Have a fun with wargame. Do not made enemy at game board is my motto.
Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the forum rules and especially the difference between arguing RAW, RAI and HYWPI.
Nobody here is expecting you to change how you play the game. Nevertheless the actual rules are very clear. You can either see your target or you dont shoot. Theres no magical "but my model can be on his tippy toes" just because your house rules say so.
Additionally where does this house rule end? Can i put my dreadnought half obscured by the corner of a ruin so it gets a cover save when you shoot at it and claim its leaning around the corner to fire both its weapons (although one doesnt have LOS) or wouldnt that be okay for you? Afterall its a dynamic dreadnought that is able to move and not a static plastic model.
Or what about a flyer that is behind a ruin. Couldnt i legitimately claim that its "HIGH HIGH UP IN THE AIR" and therefore it can see everything? And when you start to complain i direct you to the spirit of the game and tell you that "where i played the last 10 years we always played it that way" and start rolling my shots.
So where do you draw the line when you assume that models are not actually in the pose/setup that they are as models on the table? And what do you do when you have a rules dispute? Do you discuss what the spirit of the game says or do you read the rules involved? What when you and your opponent have different ideas of what the "spirit of the game" would say?
Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.
That what I would said.
Flyer.. Someone has been cheating on me in the past... I have lack of knowledge in flyer.
If it happen to me...
Maybe I will have to let them. Because flyer do not affect ground base and flyer are work out as two layer ( one for ground and one for sky)
I haven't read flyer fully because this was new to me. Maybe I would ask my opposition "how high" and measure their weapon range? Way up high may be out of range already.
Both of those are topic of line of sight..
Since someone said this is "you make da call" forum and say I shouldn't allow to affect it then I will have to stop now and keep read this topic and see where it going.
Solidcrash wrote: Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.
That what I would said.
Flyer.. Someone has been cheating on me in the past... I have lack of knowledge in flyer.
If it happen to me...
Maybe I will have to let them. Because flyer do not affect ground base and flyer are work out as two layer ( one for ground and one for sky)
I haven't read flyer fully because this was new to me. Maybe I would ask my opposition "how high" and measure their weapon range? Way up high may be out of range already.
Both of those are topic of line of sight..
Since someone said this is "you make da call" forum and say I shouldn't allow to affect it then I will have to stop now and keep read this topic and see where it going.
This dreadnaught wouldnt fall over.
Spoiler:
Additionally ... if you claim he falls over i claim that a tippy toe grot cant shoot either because jeah ... its on tippy toes. Ever tried shooting? If yes - imagine doing it on tippy toes. This can go on and on and on OR we look at the actual rules. They say neither can shoot. My dreadnoughts arm mounted weapon AND the grots both cant. Solved.
House rules are fine. We have some too. But they are not the RAW and they are certainly not free of problems.
Solidcrash wrote: Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.
That is completely missing the point of the example, so here's a better one; my Warpsmith is completely obscured in cover and out of Line of Sight. Can we therefore assume that he can slip his mechadendrites/mechatendrils around the cover (they're tentacles, after all) to shoot the meltagun and flamer arms? That's not interpreting the rules in a "dynamic" way, that's doing them wrong.
Can a Space Marine in cover actually take cover, crouching down behind the wall? It's a dynamic character, after all - therefore, Line of Sight is completely obscured and they can't be fired upon. Can the same Space Marine make Snap Shots as he blind-fires his bolter over the wall like in Gears of War? Down this road lies madness.
Also, good to see that the issue of "can a model that can't get LoS shoot" is still going on strong since last I checked. Threads like this are good. They show how passionate players are about this game, so much so that this insignificant issue has gone back and forth for almost ten whole pages now.
rigeld2 wrote:Marine is behind a wall that covers his knees. Why can't he dove to the ground and get a cover save? Why are models only dynamic when trying to shoot?
Because that is not how the rules work. This is represented by the 25% coverage stipulation of cover - if 25% of the model is obscured, we assume that it is able to "take cover" against incoming shots, rather than simply standing there while enemies shoot at it. However, unlike in most cover-based shooters, cover is not invulnerable, which is why cover saves can vary.
However, if we were to play it "dynamically", a Marine going prone behind cover would be out of LOS and therefore unable to be shot at. In the actual rules, this is represented by Going to Ground behind said cover.
insaniak wrote:
If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine. It's just not how the rules actually work.
As for the kneeling guardsmen, GW have had 5 editions now to clarify that kneeling, squatting, sitting or prone models should have the same LOS as their standing counterparts. They haven't. The process for establishing LOS from the model's eyes has remained more or less the same for 20 years now.
DogOfWar wrote:Show me the rule that overrides TLoS and allows models to use a 'dynamic moving pose' rather than the model's actual pose to determine their LoS. Page number and paragraph from the Warhammer 40k rulebook, please.
Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...
Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...
Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...
Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?
If you are able to physically fit the model in the gun port, go right ahead.
rigeld2 wrote:Marine is behind a wall that covers his knees. Why can't he dove to the ground and get a cover save? Why are models only dynamic when trying to shoot?
Because that is not how the rules work. This is represented by the 25% coverage stipulation of cover - if 25% of the model is obscured, we assume that it is able to "take cover" against incoming shots, rather than simply standing there while enemies shoot at it. However, unlike in most cover-based shooters, cover is not invulnerable, which is why cover saves can vary.
However, if we were to play it "dynamically", a Marine going prone behind cover would be out of LOS and therefore unable to be shot at. In the actual rules, this is represented by Going to Ground behind said cover.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...
Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?
If you are able to physically fit the model in the gun port, go right ahead.
Spoiler:
The base isn't glued to the wall or in any way modified and neither is the Aegis Defence Line piece. No MFA required, although it'd certainly look a bit silly.
10 pages and this is still going? It has been shown that there are Games Workshop Gretchin and IG that can see over an Aegis without modification. If you want to use one pick yourself up some of those models. Problem solved for everyone.
Boss GreenNutz wrote: 10 pages and this is still going? It has been shown that there are Games Workshop Gretchin and IG that can see over an Aegis without modification.
No one has posted a picture of such yet. The closest anyone came to addressing that was someone posted that 2nd ed Grots could see over it, and someone else said they couldn't - hardly definitive.
)
rk", or "chaos", or "elder" and so forth 
