Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey dakka, I know theres issues that arise with making a model too small, but what about too large?

My understanding from hearsay is that you can essentially make a model as large as you want. People take issue with smaller models or bases because they become hard to hit, but larger ones become easier targets.

On the other hand, my boys might be able to hide behind a larger model than usual but not behind a standard sized one.

Larger ones have advantages as well. If you make a Battlewagon twenty inches long and five inches wide, you can easily get a first turn assault off, where it is difficult to do so with the stock model.

The best bet is to make the dimensions as close to the current stock GW model as possible, if the model exists.

If the model does not exist, then I would suggest using a model with a similar function as a guide on how big to make said model. (No one should complain if you scratch build a Mycetic spore to be roughly the same size as a drop pod, as there is no Spore model and the Drop Pod has a similar function).

Id say as long as your not being an uber douc*e about the whole thing , i would have a problem if it was by a few MM but if it goes up into inchs then i would have an issue -what i would think is the best option , if your with friendly spirted folks at your games then i wouldn't have a problem espescially if it is a well made model , so i generally would only have a problem if it was MUCH smaller

If a model has an official model you should really keep it the same size.

For example you could scratch-build a Battlewagon, but it's dimensions should be as close as possible to the official model.


If it doesn't, (such as the tyranid mycetic spore or looted wagon) you can build it to whatever size you want to.

Of course Terry's First Law: 'Thou shalt not be a doink' does apply. Making a Mycetic spore that is 4 ft across would generally be considered a dick move, and would narrow your opponent base dramatically

Yeah I'm not looking to make a Battlewagon that extends down the board or whatever. What I would like to do, and only if it was legal, is make a Big Squiggoth that blocks LoS to troops on the ground behind it - since my current understanding is they'll be shot at and cannot return fire due to the "hurr durr I can see their feet" rule.

You can make a "Big Squiggoth" but I did not think there was a unit in the Ork Codex for this.

Would this be for Apoc Games?

Big Squiggoth is a 40k approved FW unit. Gargantuan Squiggoth is the Apoc only version. Since we pretty much universally approve FW in NZ I'll be using it in an upcoming friendly tournament (and if it proves its worth, in a more competitive one later on)

RAW there is no permission to use scratchbuilt models, so if you want to use one you will need to get your opponent (or the TO) to agree. And that agreement is almost always going to depend on your scratchbuilt model being roughly the same size/shape as the original and not giving you any advantage because of the differences. The popular convention is that if you use something that isn't the correct size you have to count it as being the standard size if your opponent ever asks. So you would have to suffer being shot at based on the full size of the model, but would only get to obstruct LOS to protect friendly units based on the size of the real model.

And of course since you've openly admitted that your goal is to change the size/shape of the model to block LOS to your own units it's textbook MFA and most people will refuse to allow it.

Well, except for the FAQ.

I suppose it would come down to whether you consider the FAQ's to be RAW.

Q. How are the boomgun and other weapons mounted on a Looted
Wagon? (p54)
A. Players are free to mount the weapons on their converted or
scratch-built models however they see fit (i.e. in a turret,
sponson, hull or otherwise), as long as this is absolutely clear
by looking at the model.


It really does come down to 'don't be a dick' though.

Most Looted wagons i've seen have been based on a standard kit, such as a Wave Serpent, Rhino or Russ.

Lol, so the RAW are "Looted Wagon can be any size it goddamn likes"

I'm not one to abuse that, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever encounter someone who is deserving of it.

Like that famous Ork Battlewagon at a tournament long ago.
It was 4' long, so turn one it rotated on the spot and all the Orks got out into the opponents beployment zone.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Lol, so the RAW are "Looted Wagon can be any size it goddamn likes"

I'm not one to abuse that, but I'll keep it in mind if I ever encounter someone who is deserving of it.

FAQ says no such thing about any size you want.

It is accounting for looted wagons being able to be made from multiple imperial hulls and seeing how a basilisk and vindicator have hull mounts but a leman Russ has turret, they are basically saying "it is as it is modeled" so you cannot claim your basilisk has a turret.

Nothing says you may make it any size you wish.

And if you are going to claim your FW is game legal and try to force it on people without permission, then modify it so you can't see under it... Again, (since multiple threads, you seem to miss this) is MFA.

Are you willing to play it as if the stock model? Ie: the size of the Fw model and you can see under his belly? No? MFA.

 grendel083 wrote:
Like that famous Ork Battlewagon at a tournament long ago.
It was 4' long, so turn one it rotated on the spot and all the Orks got out into the opponents beployment zone.

How did he deploy it and then pivot it (on the center) without having 2' hang off the table?

nkelsch wrote:
And if you are going to claim your FW is game legal and try to force it on people without permission

Did you miss where Dakkamite said that FW is tournie legal where he is?

 Shandara wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Like that famous Ork Battlewagon at a tournament long ago.
It was 4' long, so turn one it rotated on the spot and all the Orks got out into the opponents beployment zone.

How did he deploy it and then pivot it (on the center) without having 2' hang off the table?

This was long ago, 2nd edition where the rules weren't as strict.
Also at the time you could embark as many models on a Battlewagon as would physically fit. So he had most of his army in there...

Ok so from a Tournament standpoint what you are suggesting is typically considered Modeling For Advantage. Something that is Frowned upon in tournaments. Most TOs follow a policy that models that are different from the Stock model accept all disadvantages derived from their difference, and none of the advantages.

Essentially if you are ever asking questions such as: "Is it ok for me to model x in such a way as to gain y advantage?" The answer is almost universally no

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so from a Tournament standpoint what you are suggesting is typically considered Modeling For Advantage. Something that is Frowned upon in tournaments. Most TOs follow a policy that models that are different from the Stock model accept all disadvantages derived from their difference, and none of the advantages.

Essentially if you are ever asking questions such as: "Is it ok for me to model x in such a way as to gain y advantage?" The answer is almost universally no

Agreed, if the purpose of your conversion is specifically to grant cover to the boyz behind the Squig, then that's a no-no. If you scratch build a Squig in a cool pose and it gives better cover to the boyz behind it, then the Rule of Cool should protect you.

 alienvalentine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so from a Tournament standpoint what you are suggesting is typically considered Modeling For Advantage. Something that is Frowned upon in tournaments. Most TOs follow a policy that models that are different from the Stock model accept all disadvantages derived from their difference, and none of the advantages.

Essentially if you are ever asking questions such as: "Is it ok for me to model x in such a way as to gain y advantage?" The answer is almost universally no

Agreed, if the purpose of your conversion is specifically to grant cover to the boyz behind the Squig, then that's a no-no. If you scratch build a Squig in a cool pose and it gives better cover to the boyz behind it, then the Rule of Cool should protect you.

Yup, My point was this if you are doing it to convert a cool model no one will complain as long as you are not trying to gain advantages from it. I.e. you should be granting LOS that would be granted by the actual model not your conversion.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Like that famous Ork Battlewagon at a tournament long ago.
It was 4' long, so turn one it rotated on the spot and all the Orks got out into the opponents beployment zone.

How did he deploy it and then pivot it (on the center) without having 2' hang off the table?

This was long ago, 2nd edition where the rules weren't as strict.
Also at the time you could embark as many models on a Battlewagon as would physically fit. So he had most of his army in there...

I very much doubt that this happened. Models in 2nd edition were removed from the table when they came in contact with the board edge, and if you have room on the table to pivot a 4' long vehicle, there is nowhere near enough terrain on there.

 insaniak wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Like that famous Ork Battlewagon at a tournament long ago.
It was 4' long, so turn one it rotated on the spot and all the Orks got out into the opponents beployment zone.

How did he deploy it and then pivot it (on the center) without having 2' hang off the table?

This was long ago, 2nd edition where the rules weren't as strict.
Also at the time you could embark as many models on a Battlewagon as would physically fit. So he had most of his army in there...

I very much doubt that this happened. Models in 2nd edition were removed from the table when they came in contact with the board edge, and if you have room on the table to pivot a 4' long vehicle, there is nowhere near enough terrain on there.

And vehicles in 2nd didn't pivot, they turned.

Vehicles moving slowly could turn any number of times as they went, which amounted to the same thing... you could effectively just pivot on the spot.

Ok, nice version.

Nkelsch, if you feel you have to be TFG in replying to someone who is asking perfectly legitimate questions in order to avoid being TFG, then your not someone whose opinion I particularly care to hear.

You have asked about 8 threads in the past month of: "If I modify an Ork model like this to gain an explicit advantage, is it ok?"

And you get the same responses: "ask your TO, it is MFA and most people see MFA as a bad thing. Rule of cool may work, but in general, you can do any cool model you want, as long as youa re willing to play it as the stock model"

You want to make custom Squiggoths? RULE OF COOL. You are doing it to block LOS to models behind it as you don't want to see under it? MFA. It would be like eldar/tau skimmers being modeled to sit directly on the table or someone filling the space under it with smoke or something to make it unable to be seen under. The Stock model has a particular 'disadvantage' and 'Modeling' something custom to get rid of a disadvantage is MFA which people dislike and can get you banned from tourneys depending on the TO.

You should always be willing to play things as the stock model when you make custom models. It simplifies issues and makes opponents feel you are not doing it for advantage. You are going to combine LOS blocking Squiggoths with Artificially shortened ADLs and oversized Looted wagons now? Come on man... All that is left is hiding Gorkatrukks behind custom oversized buggies and slanting Dakkajets to eliminate blind spots and crawling underground kommandos.

nkelsch wrote:
You should always be willing to play things as the stock model when you make custom models.

I disagree with this, to be honest. It's a pain to actually do, and really requires yo uto have the original model at hand to compare. And if you're going to need to original model anyway, why bother with the custom one?

If you have a problem with someone's custom model, just don't play against it. If you're happy to allow it on the table, just use it as is and save everyone the bother of trying to figure out what would work differently if it was a different model.

nkelsch wrote:
You have asked about 8 threads in the past month of: "If I modify an Ork model like this to gain an explicit advantage, is it ok?"

And in one case, it turned out to be fine, which made the other '7' threads worthwhile.

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You should always be willing to play things as the stock model when you make custom models.

I disagree with this, to be honest. It's a pain to actually do, and really requires yo uto have the original model at hand to compare. And if you're going to need to original model anyway, why bother with the custom one?

If you have a problem with someone's custom model, just don't play against it. If you're happy to allow it on the table, just use it as is and save everyone the bother of trying to figure out what would work differently if it was a different model.

Well custom models should strive to share dimensions with the stock model... But be prepared a custom model may not be allowed. If you are the one with custom models, the responsibility is on you to be prepared to answer for how your models interact with the rules... This may mean using a stock model or playing as if it is... or your model not being allowed to be used.

Hence, Ask your TO.

I think it is reasonable for people who make custom models, especially ork players, to be aware of the stock model's dimensions and know how their model is different and how it could impact the rules. The information is super available and it is part of making custom models. And when someone is already stating they are aware of the stock model and how it interacts with the rules and is making modifications to change how it works, that is way different than someone making a random model which happens to be different. Someone who knows enough that the stock model doesn't block LOS to foot orks has lost all consideration in regards to 'not playing as if it is the stock model' because the only way he can 'get away with it' is pretend not to know things and deceive people for advantage...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You have asked about 8 threads in the past month of: "If I modify an Ork model like this to gain an explicit advantage, is it ok?"

And in one case, it turned out to be fine, which made the other '7' threads worthwhile.

Fine as in allowed by the rules or 'fine' that you lobbied the TO to legalize your MFA so your models are not universally accepted and just a dirty trick when you can dupe someone to allow it? Still MFA and still a bad case of gamesmanship.

The simple act of constantly trying to figure out how far you can modify models for in-game advantage shows your problem. You have made it clear you intend to modify for as much advantage as you can get away with, why ask Dakka? The only person you need to confuse, dupe or bully is the TO who runs your events.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Ok, nice version.

Nkelsch, if you feel you have to be TFG in replying to someone who is asking perfectly legitimate questions in order to avoid being TFG, then your not someone whose opinion I particularly care to hear.

IMHO if your trying to find out just how far you can modify before you become TFG, your well on your way to already being him.

If your creating/modifying models to gain an advantage your MFA and it's not cool with most people.

You call it "modelling for in game advantage" I call it common sense.

And not 'common sense' as an excuse to break the game, but "LoS specifically from the models eyes is bs when the character the model is representing is alot more flexible than its pose allows" common sense. Or "why the feth couldn't a Big Squiggoth crouch, or be wearing robes or plates of armour underneath, to block LoS when it could obviously do so IRL" common sense. Or "why the feth can't I use a Land Raider chassis, or a Falcon Grav Tank Chassis, or whatever for my looted wagon and not just a Rhino-sized vehicle?" common sense. Or "why does my Ork defense line need to be the exact same dimensions as the Imperial Aegis, when having defense lines that fit neat and exact dimensions, no gaps, no boxes to stand on and such, is the antithesis of what the Orks represent?" common sense.

If you actually knew anything about me, you'd know I'm the polar opposite of WAAC and otherwise abusing the game. I rarely play competitively, and even when I do, my army is semi-competitive at best. I don't care much for RAW either, and am a fluff gamer first and foremost ~ which makes "hurr durr the Big Squiggoth has to be in this exact pose and feth you for asking otherwise" seem absolutely slowed. I'm just looking to see what is acceptable in the spaces where fluffy models and in-game benefits meet ~ so why the feth shouldn't I ask those questions? Would it be better for me to make the model first, and then find out that no one will play it? Or they'll play it, have no fun, and call me TFG afterwards? How does that benefit anybody?

I'm going well out of my way to cater to all the rules lawyers out there, in order to try and be fair to the gaming community outside my specific circle of opponents (none of whom have any issue with anything I've done). I'd appreciate it if you appreciated that.

As for the "fine", I'm talking about this thread here; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/529470.page

I asked as to what vehicle chassis would be suitable for making a Looted Wagon. I was told, very forcefully, that its "go Rhino or go home", but I disagreed and argued that almost any vehicle is permittable. Sofar, the consensus is strongly in favour of this being the case ~ both under RAW, RAI, and with regards to what players would be happy with my using, no matter what the reason I choose for having a larger (or smaller) Looted Wagon. So the result, is that with a few minutes of posting, I'm now in the clear to make the Looted Wagon that I want and can rest assured its not going to ruin anybody elses game, and I fail to see why that should be a problem to anybody.

Now kindly cut the attitude.

Your "common sense" is called cheating in my area.

If anyone should be allowed to modify their models in any way to gain a "common sense" advantage, then what's to stop a person from making an all custom army where every model is lying flat on the ground and all vehicles are small enough to gain cover from a single blade of grass.

Perhaps it's "common sense" to model the heads of your models attached to the feet so they can see under things...

I see nothing in that other thread confirming you can make a looted wagon out of anything you want except for one over zealous poster claiming he can model for advantage and do whatever he wants.

And looted wagons have a history of official models. There are 3rd edition official models as well as FW official models.

If you showed up with a oversized land raider which you "sped up to block Los" your model would fail rule of cool and the game would be over due to MFA.

Official FW model sets a baseline for models which fail rule of cool or are grossly abusive like using a bane blade as a looted wagon.