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.

I think there was an example a while ago of someone modeling eldar warwalkers so that the cockpit was resting on the ground so the model could claim coversaves from fences and things.

I would call that modeling for advantage.

Yeah, I miss 4th ed rules as well. 5th edition's claim that TLOS made things simpler and faster relative to an abstracted system have really only seemed slower and more contentious.

What's worse is 6th ed's various little band-aids that they've put on the cover system like focus firing and the loss of by-unit cover. Their various bumbling attempts at FAQing things only make it even worse.

For what real gain, it's sort of hard to see.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Nowhere does it say you can't modify the base.

It doesn't need to. You need specific permission to do anything in this game, so unless you can quote a rule giving permission to modify a base (other than the rare-case exception for dealing with models that didn't come with bases) then you can't do it.

You know, it doesn't say anywhere in the rulebook that you can or can't have your models lying on their sides. So where does that leave us?

Also, it doesn't say anywhere that you can or can't modify your models to get better cover saves. It's legal but a dick move.

It also doesn't say you can't have your hot girlfriend show up in a bikini and try to distract me while we game, but no one does.

No one ever does...

You use the supplied base, for the simple reason that you know if they don't put that in the book, someone will waddle along with a 11 man grey knight paladin army, with each paladin mounted on a flyer sized oval base, to prevent blast's ever hitting more than one of them.

My Raider came with two flight stands. I used the tall one, not because I wanted a bigger LoS, but because I thought it both looked cool and it suited the way the model came to mind. I've also seen a very cool raider on the internet with a grotesque sat on the front of it, holding the Dark Lance 7" off of the front of the raider to give it further reach. That is what I call MFA, if it's some a little conversion, like truescale marines that can see over cover regular marines can't, I say leave it, just means you can shoot back at them

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Against which rules?

Page 3:
MODELS AND BASE SIZES
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in
his collection on unusually modeled bases. Some models aren't
supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness,
relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to
mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using
models of a similar type as guidance.

I only laugh at the "mounted on the bases they are supplied with" because some of my minis started on smaller bases 13 years ago, and I had to change bases as the years went on.
Still, I changed with the rules, and didn't try to abuse them....still GW got money from me when I had to order 25 new bases for my Terminators. (Chaos and Imp)

I remember once a new player used to measure the distances from the end of the actual weapons, we had tried to correct him but sure enough he consistently "forgot". Once he had gotten into the hobby guess what the first conversion he ever made was? A super LONG exodus sniper rifle. About that time people wanting to play him mysteriously dried up and a week later he suddenly got very good at remembering to measure from bases.

 kronk wrote:
It also doesn't say you can't have your hot girlfriend show up in a bikini and try to distract me while we game, but no one does.

No one ever does...

You live in the wrong area lol. We had a YuGiOh player here who got into MechWarrior, she was in her 20's and cute, in that nerdy Hello Kitty, Velma from Scooby Doo way. She would take off her hoody because it was getting hot, then the next layer, till she was in a baggy low cut tank top, and was leaning over the table "to see what you are playing"
The 13-15 year old boys were fighting over who played her, and always seemed to lose... :/

 RicBlasko wrote:

The 13-15 year old boys were fighting over who played her, and always seemed to lose... :/

You and I have different definitions to the word "lose".

Nice one on her, though.

I loved the 3rd edition LoS rules (it is what I learned to play).

There was a major problem though that you could take a 10 man wraithguard squad and "hide" an army behind it. Imagine having to shoot a wraithstar down before you can even shoot the rest of the enemy army. Funny thing is that my eldar were the most durable army at the club, made terminators look like glass.

I am fine with anyone using converted models as long as they look cool and as long as he has a reference model for anything related to e.g. shooting.

If someone came up with a crawling Giant / Tervigon or sth. and claimed that I could not shoot at him due to the changed size, I'd immediately report the player to a TO and he'd likely be penalized - since tournaments already have rules on such a matter, I quote:



In fun games...I'd expect a similar treatment. No need to bring a full model, but I'd expect my opponent to be lenient on close decisions.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, I miss 4th ed rules as well. 5th edition's claim that TLOS made things simpler and faster relative to an abstracted system have really only seemed slower and more contentious.

What's worse is 6th ed's various little band-aids that they've put on the cover system like focus firing and the loss of by-unit cover. Their various bumbling attempts at FAQing things only make it even worse.

For what real gain, it's sort of hard to see.

TLOS has been in every edition since 3rd, and only 4th had the abstracted levels system which ONLY came into play during combat. A lot of people played 4th edition incorrectly (search back to the "magic cylinder" arguments of old)

TLOS is actually very, very easy to deal with, while abstractions generally cause more annoyances long term. JSJ being a prime example of a crap exploitation of 4th edition Area terrain rules (not all terrain, just area, couldnt be shot through) and peoples mistakes in often making EVERYTHING, including hills, area terrain.

 RicBlasko wrote:
I only laugh at the "mounted on the bases they are supplied with" because some of my minis started on smaller bases 13 years ago, and I had to change bases as the years went on.
Still, I changed with the rules, and didn't try to abuse them....still GW got money from me when I had to order 25 new bases for my Terminators. (Chaos and Imp)

I field my terminators on the small bases they came with. Nobody I've played with has complained, even in tournament settings (my small, FLGS tourneys.)

Sure, they can deepstrike into some pretty tight places, which is nice. But after said DS, the whole 5 man squad can be covered with a small blast template. You know, the one plasma cannons kick out.

A lot of modeling for advantage has some disadvantage attached. Something to keep in mind.

 AndrewC wrote:
Now it is easier to hide 25% of a kneeling figure to claim a cover save than a standing one. So if I use a kneeling figure can that not be construed as MFA?

It would only be MFA if you go out of your way to trade away all of your standing IG/FW legs to get as many kneeling legs as you can so that your forces are all shorter to get better cover opportunities. If you include the "single" kneeling figure in your squad and that one model just happens to be able to be in cover easier it is not MFA.

For me it is the intent and the extreme combined to gain advantage in some way that defines it. Like the wraithlord mentioned earlier, it was an extreme pose, but *not* designed to gain advantage and the player even put a tree on the base that showed the normal full height of the model for targeting purposes. *That* is just a cool conversion. Now if a player had multiple wraithlords and they were all modeled kneeling to gain the advantage of easier cover then they are definitely MFA.

Skriker