Modeling to Disadvantage (how do you play it?)

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.

**Thor665**

Greetings,

For my 1000th post spectacular (and my wonderful "upgrade" from a Ravager to a Scourge...) I have a question to ask of the 40k Dakka crowd.

To whit; I have often seen on these boards people expressing their issues with players who 'model to advantage.' For instance, making a kneeling Wraithlord in a sniper pose with his weapon. Total cheese fest, yes? I have seen players be requested to use a standing straight model in these situations, or to allow a shot that would hit "if the model was standing as it should be."

My question, however, is do you think people should follow the logical opposite flow of the issue. For instance, say I model a sergeant figure in a squad atop a pile of corpses to help distinguish him, or make a 'leaping' Assault Marine or Stormboy who has a higher position then the model would have if it was standing as it should be. Should you opponent be able to draw LoF to the unit because one of them is tall enough to be seen over the transport they just hopped out of because of how it's modeled?

I'd be curious to hear people express their opinions on both aspects just to see the interaction of the two belief systems - explanations of why would be great too.

Personally I am fine with modeling for advantage or disadvantage (I mean, if someone wants to go through the effort of getting enough kneeling Space Marine legs for his entire army, more power to him...though I would be against an IG army with them all in foxholes so it's just a bunch of heads sticking out of the ground or something) There are advantages and disadvantages to 'kneeling' figures and other such units and I am fine with them and usually appreciate the effort done to make a more unique looking piece. I play true LoS in all situations and work with the model however it is modeled.

What about you?

**kirsanth**

Thor665 wrote:There are advantages and disadvantages to 'kneeling' figures and other such units

I agree with you for everything except the above quote, and then just slightly have issue.
There are usually both advantages and disadvantages to such modeling.
I have seen hormagants glued to the base on their side. There is no downside to the Tyranid player for doing so -- it is perhaps a slight issue with ruins, but that is a HUGE stretch.

That said, I have no real issue with people making nice looking models and then wanting to play with them. We use TLOS, not some approximation of what it would be if every model was identical.

Of course the people I play with are not . . . bad enough to try to field models as ridiculous as my prior example.
(The "sliding" models were done in edition 3-4 and are no longer used in 5e where it makes a much larger difference)

**Sanctjud**

I have 4 Daemon Princes who are a good 2-3 inches higher than a normal prince.
I run with naked Princes so no ranged weapons.

So I model to disadvantedge. Generally I rarely get cover saves from hiding behind rhinos when I should if it was the original model.

Some opponents are ok with allowing what should be a cover save a cover save, but this is only a house rule on the few times I play against more laid back players.

Otherwise, I play with a handicap....I guess it's only a good thing if I win with it

**SilverMK2**

If one of my models is sculped to be laying down or crouching, I will usually allow them to be seen over any cover if a standing model would be seen.

Otherwise, I would use normal true line of sight (for example with scratch built or converted models which are larger than their normal counterpart, that is the penalty you pay for getting the model how you want it to look).

**Sanctjud**

that is the penalty you pay for getting the model how you want it to look

Which some will have to agree to be a sad statement.

**Thor665**

SilverMK2 wrote:If one of my models is sculped to be laying down or crouching, I will usually allow them to be seen over any cover if a standing model would be seen.

Two questions;

Do you do this even if it's an official GW model that happens to be kneeling as part of its original pose?
When you draw LoF from the model to an enemy unit, do you allow it to see over cover it could see over if it was standing?

**SilverMK2**

I have plenty of models which are much easier to shoot because they are larger, taller, wider, etc than their regular counterparts.

I am not going to say "you would not normally be able to see that daemon if it were a regular GW daemon, so you can't shoot it!" because that is just silly.

I would only ever go towards more visibility when deciding if someone can see one of my smaller than normal converted models or not (such as kneeling or otherwise smaller profile models).

Though I am capable of seeing that some people will want to say their gigantic forge world dragon only has the visible profile of the regular GW dragon (where it is actually about twice the size). But then, how do you say what kind of space the original model would take up? Do you pick up and replace the model with the standard one? What about a standard model which has been posed differently? Etc...

The problems with that way of doing things is near endless.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thor665 wrote:Do you do this even if it's an official GW model that happens to be kneeling as part of its original pose?

Yes, there are several IG models which are kneeling (ie the HW team). I would count anyone shooting at them as being able to see them as if they were standing. After all, models don't get cover saves from sand bags on their bases, nor would you expect a model to spend the entire battle moving around on it's stomach when running, jumping and fighting etc.

When you draw LoF from the model to an enemy unit, do you allow it to see over cover it could see over if it was standing?

The short answer is yes. I have tried for some time to expand on that answer, but have deleted what I wrote as it was quite a rambling and confusing answer.

Basically if you have an IG HW team behind a wall or fence, they would be able to fire over the top of it (assuming that a standing model could see over the wall), which would mean that other people should be able to shoot at them, even if the models themselves are not visible due to the fact that they are kneeling.

**Skinnattittar**

For regular infantry models, 25mm bases, I use my old and trusted "film canister" rule of thumb. Larger models, depends on how they are normally. Terminators, the same rule generally applies, just over the area of the base. Larger models, like 60mm, I use discretion for the model as intended, i.e; the tallest it normally is.

**Aduro**

It's not really something I concern myself with. I try to make a point not to model for Advantage, such as making sure I've got flying Destroyers in all my units as the standing ones are shorter than stock figs, thus keeping them from hiding when they'd otherwise be unable to. Mostly though I just build something to look cool, and then play it as is, such as making all my `Nid monsters bigger than the norm and thus much harder to get cover.

**Emperors Faithful**

I see no problem with people using models in cool poses (The kneeling sniper Wraithlord sounds pretty cool, and I would have no problem playing them)
It works both ways, if the Wraithlord can't be seen behind a building that it would normally shoot over, then you can't shoot at it, but the Wraithlord can't shoot at you either.

I only have a problem with people that are OBVIOUSLY trying to powerplay with conversion. (i.e. Creed modeled on a huge base so his orders stretch further in all directions.)

**Clthomps**

I more often than not have problem with people modeling terrain.

The last Tourney I went to I played on 3 different boards with hills and ruins just tall enough to give rinhos and the like cover.

But when it comers to skimmers there was no cover on the entire board...

So to combat this I am chopping my flying bases down so that all my skimmers are 1 mm from touching the board.

Is that modeling for an advantage?

**Aduro**

Clthomps wrote:So to combat this I am chopping my flying bases down so that all my skimmers are 1 mm from touching the board.

Is that modeling for an advantage?

That's pretty much the very definition of modeling for an advantage. If you have a problem with the terrain or tables, talk to the TO, don't simply cheat next time.

**Thor665**

I think all you're dealing with there is the shift from 4th to 5th cover rules which does tend to require higher terrain to aid skimmers and their ilk.

Frankly - if you can get your Raiders and Ravagers to stay on their bases in any way shape or form regardless of their height I consider it a win.

On an intellectual level I would say it is modeling to an advantage. I'd have no problem playing against it though. (heck, when I go to tourneys I often bring higher terrain with me if I know the venue is kind of a hill and hedge sort of place)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aduro wrote:That's pretty much the very definition of modeling for an advantage. If you have a problem with the terrain or tables, talk to the TO, don't simply cheat next time.

Harsh words, and not all tourneys have a rule against modeling for advantage - and it isn't cheating by any official 40k rule.

**Emperors Faithful**

It is a TFG move though. Then again, he can't exactly shoot at anything as normal skimmers ussualy enjoy doing.

**Lorgar's_Blessed**

Frankly, I go off of what the model is. There's a few reasons behind this.

1. There's no SET WAY to model anything. GW releases their models as, basically, representatives of the piece of infantry or vehicle, meaning if someone wants to make their models kneeling, so be it. That's how they want the model to be.

2. Usually if I can't draw a bead on them, they can't draw a bead on me. What I mean is, a kneeling Space Marine is gonna hit the same time I do. The bigger creatures are different, as a kneeling or short DP would make it easier to get a cover save.

3. The other player took time to make these models. I don't care for their intention, but they did it. They should be allowed to use them.

4. In a tournament, the model has to be GW parts, but it never says it has to be the same model with no conversion. A kneeling DP is indeed a conversion. If tournaments don't mind these kinda things, neither do I.

**Thor665**

Emperors Faithful wrote:It is a TFG move though.

I'm just leery of calling it that for DE Raiders and Ravagers in particular. The flight stands were gawd awful for those things and up until I magnetized (which now has me higher then a normal flight base) I would drill out the hole slightly and clip the tip to mount the vehicle lower down on the base pole, which made them lower then theoretically they should be, but was the only way to keep them on those darn stands. Also, GW themselves provided us with multiple heghts of poles to use on flight bases - so clearly they are admitting that certain height deviation is normal and legal.

**darkkt**

Thor665 wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:It is a TFG move though.

I'm just leery of calling it that for DE Raiders and Ravagers in particular. The flight stands were gawd awful for those things and up until I magnetized (which now has me higher then a normal flight base) I would drill out the hole slightly and clip the tip to mount the vehicle lower down on the base pole, which made them lower then theoretically they should be, but was the only way to keep them on those darn stands. Also, GW themselves provided us with multiple heghts of poles to use on flight bases - so clearly they are admitting that certain height deviation is normal and legal.

I dont think this sort of practicality is 'modelling for advantage' - but its a slippery slope to TFG after that.

A bit off topic, but ive seen some good alternatives for these flight stands recently - both sturdier and the benefit of being pre-magnetised (http://www.back2base-ix.com/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=2131).

**Morgrim**

I tend to go by what looks appealing, and then use plain TLoS. None of my models are really advantagous to me in that respect, although if one were a real TFG then they could claim the stock metal kneeling DL warrior was somehow trying to an advantage.

The only model I have that comes into the 'different size' debate is my highly converted beastmaster. He's on an angled scenic base (had to be to actually get him on a 25mm base, converting using 40mm based figures is tricky) and ended up being reasonably higher than the standard one. Never met an opponent that minded because he looks cool. Also, it's to my disadvantage; being larger makes him easier to hit, but since he's the only member of the unit that can shoot and it is a single splinter pistol I'm generally fleeting to get the unit into CC anyway.

**Pika_power**

If all his models are lying on their sides/backs with no conversion done and badly painted, yes, I'll get irritated. If it's an entire army of Blood Axe Orks, all laboriously converted to be lying prone with a superb camo pattern painted, he deserves to have whatever TLOS bonuses come with them.

**Emperors Faithful**

Pika_power wrote:If all his models are lying on their sides/backs with no conversion done and badly painted, yes, I'll get irritated. If it's an entire army of Blood Axe Orks, all laboriously converted to be lying prone with a superb camo pattern painted, he deserves to have whatever TLOS bonuses come with them.

QFT.

If they've put the effort into making beautiful conversion, then I guess they deserve it.