Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?
Nope. Rules should be that you can't abuse a flag/standard/big stick as a line of sight point so placing them on the ground should be the same. They look much better with their feet on the ground anyway.
Keep in mind, this goes both ways. If you're lower to the ground and slightly harder to see...you're also seeing less. It shouldn't have any impact on the game.
Also, do you play in tournaments? If not, don't even worry about it. I don't know what major tournaments say about bases/flight bases, etc.
Elbows wrote: Keep in mind, this goes both ways. If you're lower to the ground and slightly harder to see...you're also seeing less. It shouldn't have any impact on the game.
Also, do you play in tournaments? If not, don't even worry about it. I don't know what major tournaments say about bases/flight bases, etc.
I disagree that it is a fair trade-off. With a smaller profile, you have much greater control of who sees you that far outweighs the limitations on what you can see. It will often make the difference between it being possible to block line of site and it not being possible.
As such for any vaguely competitive game I'd expect the height of the model to be more or less preserved.
I would personally model them however I wanted, and have a single miniature as a 'gaming aid' that was modeled correctly.
Then whenever it could be argued that the traditional flying placement would provide / prevent LOS, I would replace the 'gaming aid' with the miniature, and then replace back after checking. Job done, prettier miniatures, and no one can accuse you of modeling for advantage. Only downside is you need a spare mini.
I built my Custodian Venatari (who are on the same base as the Inceptors/Suppressors) standing on corkboard "rocks" deliberately to avoid any modeling for advantage concerns by raising the height of the model standing on the ground to close to what it would be on the flight stand.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.
Problem solved.
Problem magnified if you're playing with people where flight stand/lack of flight stand would be an issue. Because how exactly do you trace LoS through a rock to a unit beyond them?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.
Problem solved.
Problem magnified if you're playing with people where flight stand/lack of flight stand would be an issue. Because how exactly do you trace LoS through a rock to a unit beyond them?
Treat the rock as the head? And then your opponent can shoot the rock to kill it?
This is why other games use silhouettes, that way you can accurately tell what an enemy can and cannot see of your model, even if you model your guys in weird poses (like up in the air or crouching).
Putting them on the ground limits their ability to see what they can shoot as well. It's a disadvantage that cuts both ways. If they fired indirectly though that would be a problem.
I would think it's not modeling for game advantage so much as for practicality. Those flying stands are effing terrible. We're supposed to glue the model to the stand at an external point, not a gap the end slots into. Plus, if they are glued to the stand, transporting them without breaking them off becomes a challenge. Assembling them with their feet on the bases avoids all those problems.
Plus, those guys probably don't fire their weapons while they're in the air anyway. Those are projectile weapons, and firing them while airborne would do hilarious things to their flight trajectory..
I totally hate the new flight stands. I ended up ditching those for my Inceptors. I used a nail. I cut it the right length, pushed it through the bottom of the base, and drilled a small hole in the bottom of the Inceptor's backpack. It's about 1000% more durable now.
As for the Suppressors… I don't like the looks of the models, although I do like the concept as a whole. I think I'll be using an Intercessor with a Sanguinary Guard jump pack and a Horus Heresy autocannon. I'll make the height up using some kind of basing.
I can't really see it as modeling for advantage, because it cuts both ways, and it has a distinct aesthetic justification. As opposed to actual MfA situations, like doing weird things with gun placement, like both sponsons on the same side of a land raider.
I like the new stands personally, but apparently am in the minority. as for if not mounting on flight stand is modeling for advantage... not really, if its on the base it can't see over things to shoot, so many games are played on planet bowling ball that the stand make them see everything and everything see them. personally even on stands on the tables i play with plenty of los blocking terrain the height doesn't really affect anything but the look unless they are on a top story
Marmatag wrote: Putting them on the ground limits their ability to see what they can shoot as well. It's a disadvantage that cuts both ways. If they fired indirectly though that would be a problem.
As I say above, I think this is a cop out. I don't think the disadvantage is of the same order as the advantage, primarily because you control to a degree how you play to those advantages and disadvantages.
There will be many terrain features it would be impossible to get behind with the flying base, without you can hide. If you want to shoot you can usually just move a different way though.
Bookwrack wrote: I can't really see it as modeling for advantage, because it cuts both ways, and it has a distinct aesthetic justification. As opposed to actual MfA situations, like doing weird things with gun placement, like both sponsons on the same side of a land raider.
It cuts both ways but not equally favouring non flying stick
Of course 40k is so non-competive game that's least of it's worries
I don't play tournaments, and I can't really be convinced that Warhammer 40k has tight enough rules to worry about modeling for advantage. Well, unless it is pretty blatant.
With the suppressors, I see modeling them on the ground more as trying to make the models look less silly than trying to get some sort of advantage. They honestly don't look like they should in the air all that much given the size of assault marine jump packs. Be it they are less powerful or more high tech flight/jump systems. Less powerful means they can't, more high tech means they shouldn't allow the enemy a fun turkey shoot. Even Starship Troopers knew that.
Marines use suspensors to negate the weight/recoil from their heavy weapons, have done so since at least 2E.
If Tau, who are thousands of years lagging in tech can fire shoulder-braced rail rifles that can punch holes in tanks without becoming armless, I don’t have a problem with suppressors flying about hip-firing autocannons.
Anyways, I’ll be modeling mine flying and assuming 40K tech has some method to negate/reduce the recoil, by suspensors, thrusters, antigravity nodules or otherwise.
Stux wrote:...With a smaller profile, you have much greater control of who sees you that far outweighs the limitations on what you can see. It will often make the difference between it being possible to block line of site and it not being possible.
Don't you mean a lower profile? The flight stand doesn't affect the models actual size.
Stormonu wrote:If Tau, who are thousands of years lagging in tech can fire shoulder-braced rail rifles that can punch holes in tanks without becoming armless, I don’t have a problem with suppressors flying about hip-firing autocannons.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?
T'au Crisis suits also come with flight stands, nobody has ever mentioned modelling for advantage with crisis suits having their feet on the ground. I hardly ever see them modelled on the flight stands.
Its fine, model them how you want. Either way has advantages and disadvantages. I would rather you be happy with the way your models look than worry about some supposed purity of modelling.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Hi! So there has been a lot of talk going around about the new models especially the suppressors. I have seen several pictures of potential kitbashes of them all of which place the suppressor on the ground instead of on a flight stand. Do you consider this modeling for advantage to not use the flight stands and instead put their feet on the base?
T'au Crisis suits also come with flight stands, nobody has ever mentioned modelling for advantage with crisis suits having their feet on the ground. I hardly ever see them modelled on the flight stands.
Its fine, model them how you want. Either way has advantages and disadvantages. I would rather you be happy with the way your models look than worry about some supposed purity of modelling.
Honestly, you are kind of swaying me here.
For a beer and pretzels style game at least, it certainly wouldn't phase me.
Its really not hard to raise the base up with cork so that their height remains the same and still looks good.
On the whole though, it doesn't actually make much of a difference in game. The models are hard to hide because of their "compensation" weapon and I wont throw a hissy fit if someone hides them behind some box's as now they get -1 to hit me when they move to shoot me back.
The stands are utter gak, that's why you use brass rod instead of half of the odd solutions presented ITT, if a unit is meant to be "floating" it looks daft with its feet on the ground.
Grimtuff wrote: The stands are utter gak, that's why you use brass rod instead of half of the odd solutions presented ITT, if a unit is meant to be "floating" it looks daft with its feet on the ground.
It's for these specific reasons why 40k needs to move to stricter base sizing requirements and get rid of TLOS.
Then, GW needs to release THE OFFICIAL LINE LASER POINTER OF WARHAMMER (aka exact replica of the army painter one but more expensive) and strictly approach range and LOS in a more abstract but determinable methods.
You literally draw a line with a line pointer - if there are unobstructed base-to-base, it is not obscured. If it passes through another model from another unit/terrain, it is obscured and provides -1 to hit unless [ENTER EXCEPTIONS HERE]. The exceptions might be something in the lines of:
1. infantry can obscure infantries but not monsters & vehicles
2. vehicles/monsters can obscure every unit type
3. flyers & swarms cannot be obscured by any unit type.
Regarding using elevation to draw LOS, really dish out the rules pertaining to how to deal with Z-axis in the game. Before that, elevations should not amount to any effect. If you hit a non-porous terrain (what we currently refer to as LOS blocking terrain) while drawing the LOS, then you have no LOS.
Grimtuff wrote: The stands are utter gak, that's why you use brass rod instead of half of the odd solutions presented ITT, if a unit is meant to be "floating" it looks daft with its feet on the ground.
Look at how they're posed, plus the shock absorbers on their feet. They're simply not meant to have their feet on the ground in the poses they're in. same goes for the Inceptors. Just use brass rod where you would put the flight stand and all of the breakage problems disappear.
Look at how they're posed, plus the shock absorbers on their feet. They're simply not meant to have their feet on the ground in the poses they're in.
Sure. Of course one needs to repose the legs. But as they're power armour models, that's not so hard.
same goes for the Inceptors. Just use brass rod where you would put the flight stand and all of the breakage problems disappear.
Yep, I did that for the Inceptors as they actually look good airborne. Except for one guy which I modelled as landed for variety, the same way I'm planning to model these Suppressors.
I utterly hate inceptors, but if I could model them standing and without the skids, I think they'd look great.
On that topic, how hard is it to model inceptors on the ground? Is there a lot of cutting and filing involved to get rid of that wide stance? And are the skids part of the legs or can they be easily left out?
It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Smirrors wrote: It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Smirrors wrote: It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Again, the advantage goes both ways.
It does rather stand out that anyone who's said it IS modeling for advantage so far hasn't been able to provide any actual examples of it.
Smirrors wrote: It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Again, the advantage goes both ways.
It does rather stand out that anyone who's said it IS modeling for advantage so far hasn't been able to provide any actual examples of it.
Wait. Isn't Smirrors post a clear description of how it would be an advantage to have them modeled on the ground? I am very confused on what you are trying to say here.
Being able to hide models from shooting is good. Putting the model on the base instead of the flight stand makes it easier to hide. The mobility of the unit and the all or nothing nature of concealment makes it unlikely that a model on a flight stand would be able to shoot at a unit that a model on the ground cannot shoot at. Modeling the unit on the ground would be modeling for advantage.
That said, I think that flying stands are annoying ( f**** gargoyles) and GW not releasing the unit with a official way to model them on the ground is stupid. As a player I wouldn't have any problem if my opponent had them on the ground. If I were a TO or event organizer I would be very hesitant to approve their use, and would be inclined to require to player to have a set of the models on the flying stands to substitute if requested by an opponent.
Ginjitzu wrote: I utterly hate inceptors, but if I could model them standing and without the skids, I think they'd look great.
On that topic, how hard is it to model inceptors on the ground? Is there a lot of cutting and filing involved to get rid of that wide stance? And are the skids part of the legs or can they be easily left out?
Absolutely modelling for advantage. Cutting a model's LoS profile in half and not replacing the difference with cork or rock, means the model will most definitely perform differently. You now have more options to hide it when need be, and for a jump into getting into LoS when you want to is never an issue.
There's no reason you can't fix the size difference with a base, easily, quickly, and cheaply. I'm all for conversion and cooler posing, as long as the dimensions are ROUGHLY the same, definitely doesn't have to be exact, but cutting the height of a model in half is crossing into new territory.
People saying the change equally impacts your own models, do not have a very strong grasp on this game from a competitive standpoint.
SHUPPET wrote: There's no reason you can't fix the size difference with a base, easily, quickly, and cheaply.
Modelling ability?
SHUPPET wrote:People saying the change equally impacts your own models, do not have a very strong grasp on this game from a competitive standpoint.
The OP didn't specify that they were asking their question from a competitive standpoint, but even if they were, wouldn't it be entirely the point to take them off the stands? After all, is there a rule saying you can't?
SHUPPET wrote: There's no reason you can't fix the size difference with a base, easily, quickly, and cheaply.
Modelling ability?
SHUPPET wrote:People saying the change equally impacts your own models, do not have a very strong grasp on this game from a competitive standpoint.
The OP didn't specify that they were asking their question from a competitive standpoint, but even if they were, wouldn't it be entirely the point to take them off the stands? After all, is there a rule saying you can't?
I think most people are capable of gluing on a rock or lamppost that's about of equal height on the base.
I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You are altering one of the fundamentals of the game. Maybe not a huge amount, but its bound to have an effect.
If its a casual game - or you are happy to abstract line of sight its fine.
But I feel this "40k isn't balanced enough for modelling for advantage" line has never run into someone's scratch built models that are a fraction of the size of regular models they claim to be. Again not a huge issue in a casual setting, but its not unknown for people to try it on in more competitive ones.
SHUPPET wrote: There's no reason you can't fix the size difference with a base, easily, quickly, and cheaply.
Modelling ability?
I think most people are capable of gluing on a rock or lamppost that's about of equal height on the base.
Maybe I don't want my suppressors to each weigh the same as a rock. Maybe I don't know where to buy a lamp post or how to make one that looks decent. Maybe I just prefer how the models look when they're standing. Whatever the reason, is there anything my opponent can do about it? Is there a rule from Games-Workshop or one of the major tournament organizers saying the model has to be the same height as depicted on the box
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I would think it's not modeling for game advantage so much as for practicality. Those flying stands are effing terrible. We're supposed to glue the model to the stand at an external point, not a gap the end slots into. Plus, if they are glued to the stand, transporting them without breaking them off becomes a challenge. Assembling them with their feet on the bases avoids all those problems.
Plus, those guys probably don't fire their weapons while they're in the air anyway. Those are projectile weapons, and firing them while airborne would do hilarious things to their flight trajectory..
It actually wouldn't change trajectory at all in any perceivable capacity, those marines weigh several hundred kg with all that gear, they're actually way more plausible than people on forums make them out to be. We're already having military test exosuits, it won't take 40k to make something as Suppressors possible
That's how I modeled my Inceptors, will do the same to Suppressors
About those: was it possible to pose them without that splayed leg stance or do the legs sort of force you to model them that way? Also, are the impact skids part of the leg or could you model the legs without them?
That's how I modeled my Inceptors, will do the same to Suppressors
About those: was it possible to pose them without that splayed leg stance or do the legs sort of force you to model them that way? Also, are the impact skids part of the leg or could you model the legs without them?
They would be extremely difficult to change, you'd have to use a fair bit of green stuff.
Honestly, I don't think putting them on the ground really works as is. Just looks off.
That's how I modeled my Inceptors, will do the same to Suppressors
About those: was it possible to pose them without that splayed leg stance or do the legs sort of force you to model them that way? Also, are the impact skids part of the leg or could you model the legs without them?
You're kind of forced there with the pose unless you want to cut/green stuff it by yourself, the skids are part of the leg at least on monopose models
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Add a rock on each base that's of equal height to the model's LOS on the flying stand, and use that.
Problem solved.
Problem magnified if you're playing with people where flight stand/lack of flight stand would be an issue. Because how exactly do you trace LoS through a rock to a unit beyond them?
Treat the rock as the head? And then your opponent can shoot the rock to kill it?
Think issue he was refering more of that you would be blocking LOS to units BEHIND. Like rhino doesn't actually block LOS to behind from front because there's gap below it from which you can draw LOS. If you were to make rhino without that gap behind that would be modeling for advantage as there would suddenly be no gap below.
Sick level of LOS accuracy if that rock is of issue. Bigger issue is aesthetic. How on earth every marine with jump pack always finds rock to stand on but not others.
Smirrors wrote: It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Again, the advantage goes both ways.
Not evenly though. Being on ground helps more than it hurts so overall it's positive bonus.
I'm very positive about GW and Primaris but those fying stands are unacceptable. They were unacceptable on Inceptors, on Deepkin Eels and now the Suppressors.
They look ugly and are functionally abysmal. Using an alternative is basically required and that isn't modelling for advantage but for sanity.
Smirrors wrote: It certainly is advantageous. You can hide the unit where you may not have been able to hide it before. It might be taller than a rhino but without stand it can hide behind rhino, and pop out to shoot when it wants.
Again, the advantage goes both ways.
It does rather stand out that anyone who's said it IS modeling for advantage so far hasn't been able to provide any actual examples of it.
Ummm yes they have? Easier to hide your models. And before you said you can't see as easily no it does not work out evenly. With smaller profile you can more easily ensure you have LOS to target you want while cutting LOS from enemies. Just for example if you model it on ground so it fits behind sideway rhino(sideways is wider anyway) you can use the rhino to block LOS from certain angles while giving you angle toward your target ensuring you see target but certain enemy units don't see you. How you can claim that is NOT advantage?
SHUPPET wrote:People saying the change equally impacts your own models, do not have a very strong grasp on this game from a competitive standpoint.
The OP didn't specify that they were asking their question from a competitive standpoint, but even if they were, wouldn't it be entirely the point to take them off the stands? After all, is there a rule saying you can't?
Rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't. The only thing GW have to say on the matter is models must be based on the base they came with, whether the flight stand is considered part of the base is up for debate.
SHUPPET wrote: There's no reason you can't fix the size difference with a base, easily, quickly, and cheaply.
Modelling ability?
I think most people are capable of gluing on a rock or lamppost that's about of equal height on the base.
Maybe I don't want my suppressors to each weigh the same as a rock. Maybe I don't know where to buy a lamp post or how to make one that looks decent. Maybe I just prefer how the models look when they're standing. Whatever the reason, is there anything my opponent can do about it? Is there a rule from Games-Workshop or one of the major tournament organizers saying the model has to be the same height as depicted on the box
the rule is called modelling for advantage, I don't own the 8th brb so I'm unsure if it's in the current edition but either way it's enforced almost universally at all events and most other places within the community too.
What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG. if you want dislike a model's base, you can convert a similarly sized one, if not, you can bite the bullet and play the model you bought at the height profile that was intended for it.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You can't control terrain. Sometimes you will play on a board with large amounts of terrain that will hide the model, sometimes you won't. Making the model shorter is equivalent to being able to make terrain taller for yourself but not your opponent.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You can't control terrain. Sometimes you will play on a board with large amounts of terrain that will hide the model, sometimes you won't. Making the model shorter is equivalent to being able to make terrain taller for yourself but not your opponent.
Honestly it is such an edge case that it isn't worth the time fussing about. You can only model for advantage if you know the metrics of the terrain. You say, make the terrain shorter, well what if it is not full-model height? What if it has windows? What if they are forests and fauna that doesn't block LOS anyway?
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You can't control terrain. Sometimes you will play on a board with large amounts of terrain that will hide the model, sometimes you won't. Making the model shorter is equivalent to being able to make terrain taller for yourself but not your opponent.
Honestly it is such an edge case that it isn't worth the time fussing about. You can only model for advantage if you know the metrics of the terrain. You say, make the terrain shorter, well what if it is not full-model height? What if it has windows? What if they are forests and fauna that doesn't block LOS anyway?
A minor or situation advantage is still an advantage. You have changed your model in a way that gives you an advantage. Think of it like this: if I had a single die in my cube of identical looking dice that I knew always rolled 6's, would using that cube be cheating? When I pick up 20 dice I don't know if the unfair one is in that handful. It is a small advantage.
Furthermore, I think you are undervaluing the advantage. Or possibly you don't play a lot of ITC format games. In the ITC format small tournaments I mostly play (tournaments to maximize my 1 gaming day a month, ITC because it's what gets played here) the majority of terrain is GW stlye ruins, and first level always blocks LOS. A model being small enough to fit at 1st level translates to being able to keep it out of LOS, which translates to being able to keep it alive.
Again, this is modeling for advantage that I am personally ok with, because the GW provided model is stupid as is. Until GW releases a version of the kit that doesn't have fljvhg stands, it is modeling for advantage and you will need to address that with opponents and TO's prior to games.
SHUPPET wrote:the rule is called modelling for advantage, I don't own the 8th brb so I'm unsure if it's in the current edition..
It's not.
SHUPPET wrote:...but either way it's enforced almost universally at all events and most other places within the community too.
Yeah, that's what I suspected.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
Yet again, we appear to have another 40k debate that comes down to whether or not the situation in question is a casual or competitive one. Although, disagreements will persist about the extent of the advantage, it seems clear that everyone will agree that there is at least some advantage to modeling without the stands. It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
SHUPPET wrote:the rule is called modelling for advantage, I don't own the 8th brb so I'm unsure if it's in the current edition..
It's not.
SHUPPET wrote:...but either way it's enforced almost universally at all events and most other places within the community too.
Yeah, that's what I suspected.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
Yet again, we appear to have another 40k debate that comes down to whether or not the situation in question is a casual or competitive one. Although, disagreements will persist about the extent of the advantage, it seems clear that everyone will agree that there is at least some advantage to modeling without the stands. It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
FWIW most competitive players I know in the UK wouldn't care. Can't speak for elsewhere.
People seem to have this idea that competitive players are deadly serious and casual ones not, but that is not at all the case. Also, competitive players typically travel more with their army so modelling suppressors/inceptors/eels without those damned stands is something most can empathise with.
Basically, I think the problem is some people are overthinking a minor issue. Given that it can fly and is hardly an OP unit (on paper), it doesn't matter imo.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
The example was on the deliberately pointed one to show you how drastically changing the LoS profile on a model because you prefer it aesthetically, can alter the gameplay impact of a model, and that laziness or aesthetic preference isn't a valid reason for doing so. If you can see why one is an advantage you can now unmistakeably recognise why the other one is. I'm not saying that they are the same level of disrespect, because I can see why someone would want to remove the stands of these models like in your example, whereas anyone doing my example is clearly being utterly ridiculous. And that's why the rule is enforced.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread... It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
So with given two different heights of the flying stems that most light vehicles come with, which one would you say the "fair" and "sportsmanlike" modelling solution to approximating the "intended height?" What about those who use the squatting fire warrior models to claim TLOS underneath a flying devilfish? Are they being "fair"? after all, you can't make a full squad of fire warriors without using those sprues.
The answer is there is no such thing, and people are free to model their miniatures how they see fit, just as much as you are free to decide to not play with someone with such models.
All of the decisions allowing/disallowing is done at the discretion of involved players/TO's, aka house rules. It's one thing to discuss the potential impact of MFA, but words like "fair" and "sportsmanship" don't belong in this discussion.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
The example was on the deliberately pointed one to show you how drastically changing the LoS profile on a model because you prefer it aesthetically, can alter the gameplay impact of a model, and that laziness or aesthetic preference isn't a valid reason for doing so. If you can see why one is an advantage you can now unmistakeably recognise why the other one is. I'm not saying that they are the same level of disrespect, because I can see why someone would want to remove the stands of these models like in your example, whereas anyone doing my example is clearly being utterly ridiculous. And that's why the rule is enforced.
I think the problem is that you're boiling the issue down to a binary one of fair/unfair, that which I agree can be done, is not something I believe should be done. I believe the issue is a scalar one and should be considered as such.
Does modelling inceptors/suppressors give them a line-of-sight advantage? Yes.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to invalidate "aesthetic preference" as "a valid reason for doing so," in a narrative setting? No.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to warrant mandating that the flight stands must be used at a competitive level? I don't believe so, yet I can understand why a tournament organizer might disagree: one might consider that in the highest levels of competition, every edge counts, and that's an entirely understandable.
skchsan wrote:So with given two different heights of the flying stems that most light vehicles come with, which one would you say the "fair" and "sportsmanlike" modelling solution to approximating the "intended height?"
As there is a choice in the flying stems, I would argue that one could choose either to approximate a fair height.
skchsan wrote:What about those who use the squatting fire warrior models to claim TLOS underneath a flying devilfish? Are they being "fair"? after all, you can't make a full squad of fire warriors without using those sprues.
My understanding of the rules is that line-of-sight can be drawn from any part of the model, including their toe/hoof, so I don't see a difference between the fire warriors in your example. Is my understanding not correct?
skchsan wrote:All of the decisions allowing/disallowing is done at the discretion of involved players/TO's, aka house rules.
I agree.
skchsan wrote:It's one thing to discuss the potential impact of MFA, but words like "fair" and "sportsmanship" don't belong in this discussion.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to warrant mandating that the flight stands must be used at a competitive level? I don't believe so, yet I can understand why a tournament organizer might disagree: one might consider that in the highest levels of competition, every edge counts, and that's an entirely understandable.
Cutting it's sight profile in half is the difference between being able to hide behind LoS more often then not. Jump units like this are so much taller for good reason. This is literally the sort of difference that can affect game outcomes and if anyone thinks otherwise, you have either never had a close game or are just don't have a strong grip on the game. LoS is the most important mechanic in the game, and whether or not you give it up affects so much. There's a reason Shock Cannon Hive Guard are garbage even though they hit almost double as hard as Impalers. LoS profile is very relevant, especially drastic changes to it like this. Roughly the same size, people will okay it, we all love conversions. Ridiculously different simply because you don't like the model? Nah.
Whether you are doing intentionally or not, at least recognize that there is an advantage, that just choose to ignore it.
The model that has had its profile altered has the advantage as they are in control of its position and what it can do in its turn. Given the random nature of who goes first this could very well come into play in some situations.
For a game that is based purely on line of sight to parts of models, models should be built as intended by GW. Where you have room to play with is all the extra decorative bits.
Here in this thread we have an example were it looks like the model is awkwardly posed just to avoid the stand. It looks worse than on the stand IMO (falling backwards firing).
As for someone bringing up the example of kneeling tau fire warrior, it it came in the kit its fair game. Buying a bunch of the kneeling warriors and using them in a single squad would be modelling for advantage.
At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
Smirrors wrote: At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
The problem with this is that really competitive players will question the exactness of someone lifting the model to a height, and some may even complain that models should never be moved out of phase, in spite of the fact that wobbly model syndrome allows for it.
Smirrors wrote: At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
The problem with this is that really competitive players will question the exactness of someone lifting the model to a height, and some may even complain that models should never be moved out of phase, in spite of the fact that wobbly model syndrome allows for it.
I would hope in a serious tournament, the TO will have a policy on this that will make it straightforward.
This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
The flight stand on a crisis suit is far less of a difference in height than these and you know it.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
those flight stands add less height to the model than putting them on a single layer of fork would lol. That falls under "roughly the same size" and is why it's the only example you can find of this "precedent", and is definitely not a parallel or precedent to this issue here. Crisis suits are the exception, not the rule, and if taking suppressors off their stands only accounted for the loss of height of the vertical length feet then that wouldn't be an issue either, as we've already said if it was modelled to have a roughly similar height that would be fine. There is a far more significant LoS change here that crosses into "modelling for advantage" territory.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
those flight stands add less height to the model than putting them on a single layer of fork would lol. That falls under "roughly the same size" and is why it's the only example you can find of this "precedent", and is definitely not a parallel or precedent to this issue here. Crisis suits are the exception, not the rule, and if taking suppressors off their stands on accounted for the height of their feet then that wouldn't be an issue either, as we've already said if it was modelled to have a roughly similar height that would be fine.
Agreed.
Honestly though, for casual games I really don't care. You've put effort into making your models look how you want. Fine, cool.
In a competitive setting I do think it matters though.
Crimson wrote: This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All your stuff always looks great Crimson those are really inspiring.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
Maybe it depends on the local TO but over various editions I've had no issues with models that have been in some cases 1-2 inches higher than another model that's exactly the same.
From crisis suits, marine HQ's and one of the guys I play against has 2 riptides that are atleast 2 inches in hight different and they've never been had hassle.
This sounds like people projecting a problem into the rules that isn't RAW the issue you think it is.
SHUPPET wrote: Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes.
I think we disagree on what 'common sense' dictates in this instance...
Sigh. I didn't say this specific instance was defined by common sense, there's quite clearly enough of you who got it wrong to prove that. I'm saying that the recent ITC updates were in parts, and that Bacon's statements basically say "don't attend tournaments".
There is nothing unfair about disallowing modelling for advantage. In fact it makes the game more fair, and has to be enforced in some manner or other, or else as I said earlier, Carnifex heads attached to bases "tunnelling" up the field happens. You have to draw the line somewhere and whether or not you define that as "arbitrary" does not make it at all unfair - significant / vastly different LoS profiles to the standard IS an unfair advantage and to even equate that with "no different to banning purple colour schemes" just shows the depth of absurdity in BaconCatBug's statement.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
Maybe it depends on the local TO but over various editions I've had no issues with models that have been in some cases 1-2 inches higher than another model that's exactly the same.
From crisis suits, marine HQ's and one of the guys I play against has 2 riptides that are atleast 2 inches in hight different and they've never been had hassle.
This sounds like people projecting a problem into the rules that isn't RAW the issue you think it is.
You've already had this addressed and it's beyond clear that fractional changes like give or taking an inch off a Riptide or the difference in height between a standing crisis and the millimetres it gains on its flight stand, are not what anyone is referring to when they are talking about modelling for advantage. Slicing a model's height in half is, and would be moderated at MOST (not all, I can't verify where you play) competitive ITC tournaments if an opponent called a judge on it. An inch isn't huge to a Riptide, you could see that just by having him leaning forward or something. Take that same inch off the height of a squad of Marines for example though and see how many T. O. s let that rock. I remember a guy who tried to model his Riptide laying down once lol. the fact is the thread asks what will be considered modelling for advantage, and the answer to this one is that it will vary from tournament to tournament, but yes, many places will consider this level of height alteration to be modelling for advantage and to say otherwise would be pretty irresponsible advice. If the question is for casual play than the answer is basically whatever your opponent is willing to play against, but it seems most would be willing to play against it in a casual setting.
To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.
Or if you really really dont want your models to be that tall then just put the clear rod into a base and put a ball of kids clay or something on top of it to use it as a proper LOS measure (Of course with the ball of clay being nearly the same size) if your opponents has a problem with it.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
GW will send you the right ones for free.
And if you're unaware of the fact? It WAS the base the model was supplied with.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
GW will send you the right ones for free.
And if you're unaware of the fact? It WAS the base the model was supplied with.
The same thing that happens if you're unaware about a rule, or even better, your codex copy had a miss-ink and 16 wounds reads as 18, or if your squad of Scout marines accidentally gets a Hellblaster spree in there and you are new and don't know and model then all together and have scouts with assault plasma.
The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling
SHUPPET wrote: The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling
The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?
All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.
SHUPPET wrote: The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling
The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?
All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.
While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.
SHUPPET wrote: The actual competitive ruleset doesn't give a gak, they stay the same as the standard of play for everybody else who has it correct and one way or another, you'll eventually find out the correct ruling
The competitive ruleset that largely depends on the whims of the TO and not on an organised worldwide standard of play?
All I'm saying is that any issues you have with something not EXPLICITLY written in the rules must be taken to a TO, and they have to be the ultimate arbiter in that decision. That decision isn't important beyond the confines of that particular TO's authority - so, for example, a ruling by TO 1 in America has no bearing on the decision of TO 2 in Britain. The idea of a universal "actual competitive ruleset" is a myth.
While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.
This.
Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.
Galas wrote: To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.
Sure, you made them the same height.
And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.
Do flight stands block sight?
Do sandbags on bases give cover?
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't know a single damn person who would try to claim that a model that is modeled with a solid 'flight stand' equivalent blocks LOS.
Galas wrote: To be honest is as easy as having something like a bunch of corc in the base to make them nearly the same eight.
Sure, you made them the same height.
And also added mobile LoS blocking terrain to your model that can block sight to things behind it.
Do flight stands block sight?
Do sandbags on bases give cover?
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't know a single damn person who would try to claim that a model that is modeled with a solid 'flight stand' equivalent blocks LOS.
It's not come up in a game for me, but they're generally so thin it's pretty unlikely that it will make a difference.
There is of course no explicit RAW on whether transparent materials block line of site!
ValentineGames wrote: It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.
Sound like tables need more floating rocks terrain. That way flight stand models can get cover while non-flight stand models don't.
However, if Marneus Calgar is to believed that might give anyone playing Necrons an unfavorable advantage as they can't help but trip over floating rocks.
Anyone got some good pics of their Suppressors on the ground? I'm getting a bit irate and the next resort is brass rods up the butthole for these guys.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Anyone got some good pics of their Suppressors on the ground? I'm getting a bit irate and the next resort is brass rods up the butthole for these guys.
Thanks, man. I've got a lot of base-junk to throw down, that'll save me from having to tell someone "I shoved brass rods up space marines' buttholes this weekend".
Stux wrote: While technically true, it's still worth noting that there are near universal standards on how to deal with certain things not covered by the rules of the game, and that is something worth talking about. Having an idea of a rough baseline of what is likely to be allowed or not allowed in a tournament is still valid discussion, even if we can't be certain it will apply for any specific tournament.
Near-universal ideals based on common sense, yes. However, these aren't set in stone, and are subject to the whims of the TO. Assuming that one TO will have the same ruling as another is not a safe assumption to make. As this thread has clearly shown, the things some perceive to be common sense are completely the opposite for others.
SHUPPET wrote:I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
My objective was to highlight that the idea of a single "actual competitive ruleset" doesn't exist universally, and it does all come down to the TO's decision.
I know you said that it was all a TO's decision, and I agree with that, which leaves me confused that you would try and suggest there's some kind of universal orverriding ruleset beyond the basic rules, which don't cover modelling for advantage.
Crimson wrote:Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.
This. There are no universal standards beyond the core rules, and even then, they're not completely watertight.
forgive me if this has been already said but would it not make sense if you can see the base of the model you can shoot? i mean we measure FROM the base so why not TO the base as well?
PLAYER A: "Hey, dude- it kinda looks like your Suppressors are modeled for advantage."
PLAYER B: "Yeah, it was a real pain to get them on their clear pegs. But I brought those pegs, I'll put it under the base and hold it where it would normally be flying so you can check line of sight."
PLAYER A: "Oh, thanks man, that's pretty much the same thing you do with wobbly model syndrome- and it works just fine. Thanks for being cool and doing that for me."
PLAYER B: "No problem, bro. Isn't this game so much more awesome and comfortable when you have friendly and simple solutions, rather than try to involve tournament persons?"
PLAYER A: "Yeah, man- it makes the entire environment friendlier, even when it's competitive."
PLAYER B: "YOU JUST BUMPED THAT LAND RAIDER YOU DILDO! T.O.! JUDGE! GUARDS! ARBITES! THIS MAN MADE THE TOY WIGGLE!"
Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.
Oh for sure. But as I said, it will come down to your T.O. at the end of the day. I'm just acknowledging that while there's no guarantee of anything, certain possibilities are less or more likely than others. I could give examples but it's probably not necessary, I'm sure we all agree on that right?
ValentineGames wrote: It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.
What else are we supposed talk about...?
Well it's not like 40k players have time to do anything except talk.
They can't play the game after all.
Not when they spend years bitching about things that never happen. No time.
Or happened once to Harry. And now everyone gaks themselves over a none existent worry.
ValentineGames wrote: It's a game of toys with an unbalanced pathetic rule system but THIS age old argument is still peoples number one concern...jesus christ.
What else are we supposed talk about...?
Well it's not like 40k players have time to do anything except talk.
They can't play the game after all.
Not when they spend years bitching about things that never happen. No time.
Or happened once to Harry. And now everyone gaks themselves over a none existent worry.
I actually haven't been able to play recently, due to moving and a new job
Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.
The only thing I'm really getting from this thread is that TLOS is a bad rule that chokes off a lot of cool and characterful modelling opportunities.
Pretending there's no near-universal standard on whether or not your sleeping Riptides are going to be able to compete is a rejection of reality. I already said it was going to come down to the T.O. at the end of the day, I can't understand the objective of Smudge's post.
Whilst there is truth in this, it is good to remember that people easily assume that practices common to their area are such universal standards while they are not. On these forums I have many times seen situations where people claim that 'but everybody plays it like that' while it most certainly isn't the case. And I have to say that this modelling for advantage discussion is something I have never encountered in real life, it is something that pedants on the internet may ni-pick about. In reality people play with all sorts of converted models, old wildly different sized models, models with 'wrong' base sizes, models with large scenic bases etc, and no one really gives a crap.
The only thing I'm really getting from this thread is that TLOS is a bad rule that chokes off a lot of cool and characterful modelling opportunities.
I agree with that!
In principle I like the idea of systems that do everything base to base, and for the miniature on the base to be essentially purely aesthetic.
The issue is that 40k as it stands has an element of verticality, which causes issues but would be a shame to lose.
I've played games that do this though, such as Malifaux which has a quite abstract vertical element to it. Basically every model has a height characteristic. 1 is 'short things' like dogs and spooky children (it's a weird setting!), 2 is roughly human adult, and 3 is 'large things'.
Terrain features are also assigned a height value on this scale.
When you want to shoot something, you have to compare the height characteristic of the shooter, the target, and intervening terrain.
The abstraction does result in some weird situations where logically something doesn't quite add up, but frankly I'm ok with it because there is almost never any ambiguity as to whether a model has line of sight.
Basically, I'd be up for exploring something along these lines for 40k!
BaconCatBug wrote: 40k used to have a size statistic. There is a reason 40k no longer has one.
Yeah? I was gone for several editions so I guess I missed it (unless it was in 2nd and I simply don't remember!).
Are you sure it's an inherently bad idea, and not just one that was poorly implement in that instance?
It doesn't matter. Either it's an inherently bad idea, or GW are too incompetent to implement it correctly.
GW isn't a single entity. There are lots of competent people that work there, even if the result is often flawed. I prefer to be optimistic! It's certainly possible.
Stux wrote: GW isn't a single entity. There are lots of competent people that work there, even if the result is often flawed. I prefer to be optimistic! It's certainly possible.
GW is at the point where they have to issue errata to books BEFORE they are even sold. I can say with certainty the only competent person working there is the janitor.
Stux wrote: GW isn't a single entity. There are lots of competent people that work there, even if the result is often flawed. I prefer to be optimistic! It's certainly possible.
GW is at the point where they have to issue errata to books BEFORE they are even sold. I can say with certainty the only competent person working there is the janitor.
I shouldn't really respond to this kind of hyperbole, but as we've been over countless times before: pretty much every book ever printed has had errors in it. Maybe excluding children's books with like 4 words on each page.
Crimson wrote: This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
Spoiler:
I'm sorry if you've answered this already, but do you intend to bring these to a competition? I'd be interested to know what the organisers determine, because it seems like this is going to be a pretty popular conversion, and although a lot of commenters are suggesting it'll be disallowed, I wasn't able to find any solid examples of this actually happening before in a well known competition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: I can say with certainty the only competent person working there is the janitor.
Can you really be certain of that? Who's to say that the latrines over at Nottingham HQ aren't overflowing with "Nurgle's gift?"
Stux wrote: GW isn't a single entity. There are lots of competent people that work there, even if the result is often flawed. I prefer to be optimistic! It's certainly possible.
GW is at the point where they have to issue errata to books BEFORE they are even sold. I can say with certainty the only competent person working there is the janitor.
I shouldn't really respond to this kind of hyperbole, but as we've been over countless times before: pretty much every book ever printed has had errors in it. Maybe excluding children's books with like 4 words on each page.
Ah wish there was children books without errors.
Even finnish donald duck has errors and that's famed for it's quality translations...(indeed there's decades old error that still keeps on that was born because english uncle isn't related to are you related by mother or father. In finnish there is separate word are you somebody's fathers brother or mothers brother....).
Crimson wrote: This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
Spoiler:
I'm sorry if you've answered this already, but do you intend to bring these to a competition? I'd be interested to know what the organisers determine, because it seems like this is going to be a pretty popular conversion, and although a lot of commenters are suggesting it'll be disallowed, I wasn't able to find any solid examples of this actually happening before in a well known competition.
I strongly doubt that conversion would be disallowed as the below are fine at every major UK tourneament:
I'm sorry if you've answered this already, but do you intend to bring these to a competition? I'd be interested to know what the organisers determine, because it seems like this is going to be a pretty popular conversion, and although a lot of commenters are suggesting it'll be disallowed, I wasn't able to find any solid examples of this actually happening before in a well known competition.
The only competitive events I ever participate in are our tiny local leagues, and I don't see any problems with those. But they're pretty casual affairs and not super serious.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I measured the height difference. Compared to the shortest of the supplied flight stands (there are three different heights) my conversions are 1 -1,5 cm shorter depending on the exact height of the rubble pile on each model. I am sure that on some larger models slightly different posing results a difference as big as that. Or omitting the flight stands on Tau suits, or a difference between a kneeling and standing model, or some differences between newer and older models...
I strongly doubt that conversion would be disallowed as the below are fine at every major UK tourneament:
Spoiler:
That's much as I suspected, but I wonder if anyone can comment about US tournaments. Perhaps there is a tendency to be more stringent there as a result of their generally more competitive nature?
Ginjitzu wrote: That's much as I suspected, but I wonder if anyone can comment about US tournaments. Perhaps there is a tendency to be more stringent there as a result of their generally more competitive nature?
It's varied. Most TO's would want you to make it clear to the your opponent that they're modeled differently, and they'd probably want you to model them at the correct height- provided the terrain there made a difference. A lot of times the terrain is tall enough that it'd still give them cover, or block line of sight, or make them visible no matter what they were on.
Ginjitzu wrote: That's much as I suspected, but I wonder if anyone can comment about US tournaments. Perhaps there is a tendency to be more stringent there as a result of their generally more competitive nature?
It's varied. Most TO's would want you to make it clear to the your opponent that they're modeled differently, and they'd probably want you to model them at the correct height- provided the terrain there made a difference. A lot of times the terrain is tall enough that it'd still give them cover, or block line of sight, or make them visible no matter what they were on.
Its completely up to the TO, every place does it differently. Some will not allow any that has been changed in height some allow anything that just looks cool.
Stux wrote: As far as tournaments go, Nova have stated they will require flight stands (or a base of equivalent height).
It's probably fair to assume that most major tournaments would share similar sentiments, with only Games-Workshop being a possible exemption, as they tend to be a bit more laissez faire about such things.
BaconCatBug wrote: 40k used to have a size statistic. There is a reason 40k no longer has one.
Yes, because the playerbase confused the corresponding terrain rules with area terrain all the time so GW scrapped it. Sorry bro, that ones on players being unable to read some quite clear rules, not GW.
Then 5th came along and players we’re all like “tHeRe’S tLoS nOw! Me No LiKe!” Ignoring that TLOS had been in the game since at least 2nd ed.
Stux wrote: As far as tournaments go, Nova have stated they will require flight stands (or a base of equivalent height).
Crickets from the people saying this would most likely be allowed
Guess it seems the rest of us weren't being pedantic, and that it actually IS good advice to tell someone who was asking, that this kinda gak holds a good possibility of getting you denied from a tournament
I always use green stuff for models like inceptors and suppressors and create a "mound" for them as if they are touching down or taking off and I really like it personally. There is no advantage to having them on the floor as they can only shoot what they see and vice versa.
Rogerio134134 wrote: I always use green stuff for models like inceptors and suppressors and create a "mound" for them as if they are touching down or taking off and I really like it personally. There is no advantage to having them on the floor as they can only shoot what they see and vice versa.
It's already been explained how this isn't the case so I guess you were wrong on that one chief
Stux wrote: As far as tournaments go, Nova have stated they will require flight stands (or a base of equivalent height).
It's probably fair to assume that most major tournaments would share similar sentiments, with only Games-Workshop being a possible exemption, as they tend to be a bit more laissez faire about such things.
It is probably true but really it is only because the box art looks that way.
The box art for Crisis Suits shows them standing so you are free to ignore the flight stands if you like.
Of course there is literally no rule anywhere which states that you have to build models according to the box art but this stuff gets its own weird momentum in the community and TOs start giving rulings accordingly. Meanwhile GW are like "there is no such rule, never was any such rule, play with your models and have fun people".
I guess you choose which tournaments run the way you like and go to those tournaments. Pretty much all the tournaments I see are selling out so all the approaches and formats are succeeding in the only way that really matters.
