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.

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.

The exact problem with this is that there are and have always been (with Land raider MK2's) official GW studio models and official GW illustrations that cover both ways to assemble the sponsons on a Landraider, which establishes that both are fine. But people are completely ignoring that fact in able to continue repeating themselves in this thread.

The entire ability to support a MFA argument is one of the prime reasons why I am glad I haven't made the jump to 6th edition 40K. Geez, what a fun-killer. I personally think that measuring in the game would be much more solid if all measurements were taken to and from the center of a model's base, regardless of size. In the case of vehicles, exact center of mass as seen from directly above. It's not very hard to follow that, as a rule (well, except for Ork vehicles, as always ).

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Nope. Not legal. In the same way as using old Banshees Exarchs for their power axe, that's a clear case of CFA (Collecting for advantage)

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Why? You're not gaining any advantage that you wouldn't get by using the prone model in the first place. (Ignoring for a moment the argument over whether counting them as prone is an advantage in the first place, of course...)

 AegisGrimm wrote:

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.

The exact problem with this is that there are and have always been (with Land raider MK2's) official GW studio models and official GW illustrations that cover both ways to assemble the sponsons on a Landraider, which establishes that both are fine. But people are completely ignoring that fact in able to continue repeating themselves in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Or put plainly: Different models, different way to put them together. Even if they represent the same thing.

The entire ability to support a MFA argument is one of the prime reasons why I am glad I haven't made the jump to 6th edition 40K. Geez, what a fun-killer. I personally think that measuring in the game would be much more solid if all measurements were taken to and from the center of a model's base, regardless of size. In the case of vehicles, exact center of mass as seen from directly above. It's not very hard to follow that, as a rule (well, except for Ork vehicles, as always ).

MFA was the exact same concept in 5th, and nothing has changed about it.

Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable. But then there are no ambiguities to argue about.........

MFA was the exact same concept in 5th, and nothing has changed about it.

I don't remember all the fuss about measuring from the exact weapon in 5th, which is where this all stems from. But that might just be my memory ignoring something dumb.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Why? You're not gaining any advantage that you wouldn't get by using the prone model in the first place. (Ignoring for a moment the argument over whether counting them as prone is an advantage in the first place, of course...)

Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

Of course it does. If it represents the same thing, it should be perfectly acceptable for it to perform the same way in game.

You're way means if I have one of the prone Guard models, and a plastic Cadian converted to be prone, I'm going to be treating one of them as being prone and the other as standing up... and that way lies madness.

Just use the model you have on the table, as is, and get on with the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable.

I don't recall that ever being a rule in Necromunda.

I don't remember all the fuss about measuring from the exact weapon in 5th, which is where this all stems from. But that might just be my memory ignoring something dumb.

You measured from the weapon in 5th.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Or put plainly: Different models, different way to put them together. Even if they represent the same thing.

This is utterly bonkers!

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

Of course it does. If it represents the same thing, it should be perfectly acceptable for it to perform the same way in game.

You're way means if I have one of the prone Guard models, and a plastic Cadian converted to be prone, I'm going to be treating one of them as being prone and the other as standing up... and that way lies madness.

Just use the model you have on the table, as is, and get on with the game.

But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

Not whether or not it is MFA. Because frankly, the concept of MFA, when it gets down to such tiny concepts as this, is both ridiculous and madness.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable.

I don't recall that ever being a rule in Necromunda.

Personally, I'd have to actually check for absolute surety. Who knows, maybe that was simply a result of my local group not caring to get into such endless arguments about MFA, and instead just have fun playing the game. It's been a long time since I cracked open the book- I bought into the game back when it first came out, not the later reprint.

(Nope. I looked back at the book, and nothing is said, other than the players should come to a mutual agreement as to whether or not a model can be see or be seen from behind cover/hiding . I like to think that it's probably because Necromunda came from an age where MFA was never considered as something players would ever do, because they are both there to have fun, not just win. If you had a guy that would only be able to be in a cover situation if he was kneeling, but the model was "standing/running", you simply said he was put there with the intent that he was "kneeling behind cover", and the matter was solved.)

Not whether or not it is MFA. Because frankly, the concept of MFA, when it gets down to such tiny concepts as this, is both ridiculous and madness.

I think this thread would be shorter if everyone was able to agree to this statement. However.........

Serenity now!

Cheesedoodler wrote:
The argument is not (and since the beginning of the thread) has never been about Land Raiders specifically. It's about modifying your models to operate in a way other than the instructions intended you to do. Some LRs instructions tell you to put them forward, and some LR instructions tell you to put them in the back. You have to follow the instructions that came with the model!

Yes, putting the sponsons forward will more than likely NOT have a dramatic impact on any game, and no, no one is ever going to call you out on it and make a fuss (because frankly, making a fuss about it in a game would be ridiculous) but that is not the point of the argument, and it is not the point of the thread! People need to understand that Conversions and "counts-as" are not *strictly* legal. It just comes as understood that no one has a problem with it, and that before each game there is an unstated house rule or unstated agreement that allows you to use them.

Not that I (or anyone I know) ever would, but at tournaments a player is within his rights to simply not accept the use of your conversions, because they are not citadel models built as the instructions told you to do.

And this is why tournaments get such a bad rep among players who's sense of fun isn't a necrotised and atrophied memory; who could honestly be so pedantic as to insist that not following the instruction leaflet when you build your models is "against the rules", even as a hypothetical? It's mad.

 TheCaptain wrote:
But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

No, the argument lies in the concept that two identical models should function identically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
And this is why tournaments get such a bad rep among players who's sense of fun isn't a necrotised and atrophied memory; who could honestly be so pedantic as to insist that not following the instruction leaflet when you build your models is "against the rules", even as a hypothetical? It's mad.

The fact that people are pedantic on the internet has no bearing on how players behave in tournaments.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

No, the argument lies in the concept that two identical models should function identically.

I agree that they should.

But 40k uses silly rules like TLOS and Measuring from the gun, so when GW produces different models, they need to be used differently, despite being the "same tabletop unit"

Except that 99.9% of friendly, normal players won't care. So in real life it doesn't matter. But on the internet, it seems to.

Because you made it?

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Because you made it?

Made what?

This is the most entertaining thread I've read in a long time.

I've assembled and painted 4 Land raiders. I really wish I had kept my instructions as one was really old and had the old metal Hurricane Bolters.

Some of the pictures on the GW site and FW site have the sponsons on the front doors, and that's good enough for me.

We can aruge strict RAW all day, but has anyone been denied a tournament spot because their guns were up front? Didn't think so...

 kronk wrote:

We can aruge strict RAW all day, but has anyone been denied a tournament spot because their guns were up front? Didn't think so...

No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

 TheCaptain wrote:

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as everyone is on the same page and not inadvertently telling some new hobbiest his model won't be allowed at a tournament because his sponsons are up front.

 TheCaptain wrote:


No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

This thread was started by an actual person asking for actual advice regarding assembly of an actual model to be used in actual games.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:


No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

This thread was started by an actual person asking for actual advice regarding assembly of an actual model to be used in actual games.

Yeah.

And he got his answer.

It's the most minute, insignificant, nigh-impossible to prove case of MFA. But no one will care in real life, so ultimately he can do whatever he pleases.

MFA is an convention, and as such is dependent on the opinions of the playerbase. Clear majority here do not see it as MFA. Definition you and few others are using is so broad that it renders the concept utterly meaningless.

 Crimson wrote:
MFA is an convention, and as such is dependent on the opinions of the playerbase. Clear majority here do not see it as MFA. Definition you and few others are using is so broad that it renders the concept utterly meaningless.

The concept really isn't broad. And it's a clear-cut concept. Believe me.

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA. If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, but put lasguns in the sponson-mounts because it looks cool, and the lasguns are cut at the same length as the multimelta sponsons, and I measure exactly the same, it is a Proxy/count-as.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, but I mount the sponsons on the face of the Leman Russ, which (intentionally or not garners me certain advantages) I am MFA.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, and I mount the sponsons where the instructions tell me to, I am literally 0% MFA. Not, as some seem to suggest in this thread, so close to 0% that it is insignificant enough to not count as MFA.

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

As much as I enjoyed the hilarity in the thread (that post about Modeling/Hobby knife takes the prize)

Doesn't MFA actually mean MFUA, i.e. Modelling for Unfair Advantage? You're only MFA if you're putting a 12" long Melta on your Crusader.

Anyone can construct the LR with sponsons in either position so you're not MFA. Do you get an advantage putting them in front? Yes. Are you MFA? No.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

I still do not get why instructions matter but official art or pictures of assembled models don't. Instructions are just pictures too.

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA.

Like giving tactical squad a plasmacannon?

If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

Like kneeling plastic sniper counting as kneeling metal sniper?

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

You have to gain advantage you could not gain by using any legal model or reasonable combination of parts before we can even start to consider whether it might be MFA. Why your definition is bonkers because it cares what the original model was or where the parts came from. There are kneeling snipers and snipers that lay down, and those are legal to use in games (Like there is LR model that can be assembled only with lascannons if front) It does not bloody matter if the actual model you're using is converted to be that way or was that way originally, because you could do that anyway by getting a different model!

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

I still do not get why instructions matter but official art or pictures of assembled models don't. Instructions are just pictures too.

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA.

Like giving tactical squad a plasmacannon?

I've addressed this strawman fallacy earlier. This is not a valid comparison. Codex says you can have a Plasma Cannon, Instructions don't tell you where to put it. So you have no rules. Only that you can have it. Put it wherever. On the base. On his head. On his backpack.

Codex tells you that you can take stuff, so you can take it. Instructions tell you where some of it goes. Said some goes where the instructions tell you. The other stuff with no instructions is left between you and God.

If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

Like kneeling plastic sniper counting as kneeling metal sniper?

This was addressed too. In depth between Insaniak and I.

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

You have to gain advantage you could not gain by using any legal model or reasonable combination of parts before we can even start to consider whether it might be MFA. Why your definition is bonkers because it cares what the original model was or where the parts came from. There are kneeling snipers and snipers that lay down, and those are legal to use in games (Like there is LR model that can be assembled only with lascannons if front) It does not bloody matter if the actual model you're using is converted to be that way or was that way originally, because you could do that anyway by getting a different model!

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

 TheCaptain wrote:

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

They're just suggestions. In many multipart kits they can never show all possible combinations. Do you really think if you put the kneeling legs on a different model than in the instructions it is MFA?

I've addressed this strawman fallacy earlier. This is not a valid comparison. Codex says you can have a Plasma Cannon, Instructions don't tell you where to put it. So you have no rules. Only that you can have it. Put it wherever. On the base. On his head. On his backpack.

It is perfectly valid. If it is not in instructions, it cannot be done. Either the instructions are binding, or they're just suggestions. You cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that in many multipart kits they do not show every weapon option even if they come in the same box. And by your logic, if option is not in instructions it cannot be done, just like putting the lascannons in front in LR.

Codex tells you that you can take stuff, so you can take it. Instructions tell you where some of it goes. Said some goes where the instructions tell you. The other stuff with no instructions is left between you and God.

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Well, if someone really want to intentionally make their models look silly, sure. Though there is certain difference between current and long out-of-production models. Base sizes are a muddy area anyway.

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

They're just suggestions.

None of my instructions say "try putting Part X here! It might be fun/cool. Just a suggestion."

Mine just say "Put part X here."

That's pretty clearly an instruction.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.