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.

 BarBoBot wrote:
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...

Because I would call that guy, TFG. As for the second part of the post;

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

The burden of proof is on you, or him, to say that I cannot. There are no RAW to tell us what we can or cannot use, RAI would clearly be accepting of things such as looted Grav Tanks as described in the Looted Wagon entry and past GW rules for the looted wagon that specifically included the Land Raider, and 'general opinion' as expressed in that thread is very much in favour using almost anything you like.

 Dakkamite wrote:
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.

Basically you are saying here that you want to make a proxy for a FW model and the proxy will have benefits the fW model does not have. Yes, you are TFG. So either just be honest with yourself about it and quit pestering people on Dakka or change so you are not TFG.

If you model your scratchbuilt figure so that it conveys an advantage that the stock model does not possess, then you are modeling for advantage. I know that it's irritating to have your boyz behind the Squiggoth get shot at when they can't return fire, but that's the way it works. I will still play with you of course, just so long as we treat your scratchbuilt guy as though he were the standard off the rack model.

 Dakkamite wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
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...

Because I would call that guy, TFG. As for the second part of the post;

Spoiler:

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

The burden of proof is on you, or him, to say that I cannot. There are no RAW to tell us what we can or cannot use, RAI would clearly be accepting of things such as looted Grav Tanks as described in the Looted Wagon entry and past GW rules for the looted wagon that specifically included the Land Raider, and 'general opinion' as expressed in that thread is very much in favour using almost anything you like.

only if you count each of your own reposts in that thread as a separate post does the 'general opinion' match what you are saying. Most non-you posters seem to think anything close to a rhino is ok, which is pretty much all the 3rd edition variants except a land raider.

Also remember, 3rd edition was not representing a loot wagon statline. A looted land raider was not a loot wagon, it was an actual av14 all around, 255point land raider. It was never representing a av11 35pt model and it has no business being one in the current ork codex especially since we have battle wagon rules which are a better fit in every circumstance... We did have official loot wagons. fW rhinos and FW gun wagons which filled the hole in IA before the 4th edition codex hit. You are being obtuse about common sense to claim your 35pt land raider is legal, especially since the 3rd edition codex didn't allow that.

JWhex wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
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.

Basically you are saying here that you want to make a proxy for a FW model and the proxy will have benefits the fW model does not have. Yes, you are TFG. So either just be honest with yourself about it and quit pestering people on Dakka or change so you are not TFG.

Yep, that what people have said and so I'm not going to modify my Squiggoth (intentionally, since I don't have a proper model to work from) to gain that advantage. Reason I made the thread is because someone told me "you cannot make a model smaller, but larger is 100% fine". Hence the thread title.

only if you count each of your own reposts in that thread as a separate post does the 'general opinion' match what you are saying. Most non-you posters seem to think anything close to a rhino is ok, which is pretty much all the 3rd edition variants except a land raider.

Also remember, 3rd edition was not representing a loot wagon statline. A looted land raider was not a loot wagon, it was an actual av14 all around, 255point land raider. It was never representing a av11 35pt model and it has no business being one in the current ork codex especially since we have battle wagon rules which are a better fit in every circumstance... We did have official loot wagons. fW rhinos and FW gun wagons which filled the hole in IA before the 4th edition codex hit. You are being obtuse about common sense to claim your 35pt land raider is legal, especially since the 3rd edition codex didn't allow that.

Similar is fine, larger or smaller is not, and can be seen as MFA.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Naturally thats ignoring both Peregrine and myself.

Yeah, naturally it's much easier to get the numbers you want when you just throw out people who disagree with you.

nkelsch wrote:
Also remember, 3rd edition was not representing a loot wagon statline. A looted land raider was not a loot wagon, it was an actual av14 all around, 255point land raider. It was never representing a av11 35pt model and it has no business being one in the current ork codex especially since we have battle wagon rules which are a better fit in every circumstance... We did have official loot wagons. fW rhinos and FW gun wagons which filled the hole in IA before the 4th edition codex hit. You are being obtuse about common sense to claim your 35pt land raider is legal, especially since the 3rd edition codex didn't allow that.

Now hold up! In 3rd edition you could loot anything from a Rhino to a Land Raider, and that was your looted wagon, using the rules from the correct entry that you took it from. Now that got simplified into a Rhino-esque catch-all statline in the new codex, yes - but as far as I know, GW has always embraced the concept that you can use your official, old edition models in the new editions, which makes your looted wagon - whatever official model you used to make it - legal to use. Those to me are the 'official' looted wagon models, setting a precedent for a wide range in size, and the FW one just another variant. So while I'd agree that a looted Land Raider would be more appropriate as a Battlewagon, I don't accept the idea that a Forgeworld model sets the only acceptable standard for a regular codex entry, when that entry already has legal models from previous editions. I mean, don't the Imperial Armour books specifically state that you should make sure your opponent is fine with playing with FW models? How can they then be considered the official legal standard?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Naturally thats ignoring both Peregrine and myself.

Yeah, naturally it's much easier to get the numbers you want when you just throw out people who disagree with you.

Why would I include either of us on the poll? If you like, it can be 9 in favour, 1 neutral, 2 opposed? It doesn't matter ~ for every one person who agrees with you, eight (not including myself) disagree.

If your saying that I haven't included individuals from that thread in my tally, by all means point them out. If you cannot do that, then admit that your completely in the wrong here, that your 'universally accepted convention' is 'universally accepted' by just 10% of the other users on this forum. Or you could not do that, and just like, totally be a dick about it., in which case the it's totally going in my sig.

So, you are building a squiggoth to replace the battlewagon (which can't be looked under by anything but prone soldiers) and want to give it armor or whatever, so non-prone soldiers can't look through its legs. The gap on the battlewagon is about one third of an inch, you should leave the same gap.

Modeling a custom-build model in order to block just as much LoS as a citadel-made battlewagon seems perfectly fine to me. You wouldn't be able to field it as big squiggoth anymore though, since it blocks more LoS than the official model.

Am I missing something, or why is this so much of a problem?

The problem is that he says he doesn't want to be TFG, but he wants to know exactly how far he can push the limits before becoming TFG. In reality, it's that exact attitude that makes him TFG.

This seems to be classic MFA. You are literally changing the properties of the model to change its in game properties. This is not allowed as is considered cheating by everyone I know.

If your intention is to change the in game properties of a model through modelling it in a particular way against the normal configurations that is the very definition of MFA.

Neither you nor me actually know him.
Asking about the exact limits does not necessarily make him build to most advantageous extend of to those limits. And even if he does, he still is within the acceptable limits, isn't he?

Asking whether something is against the law doesn't make you a criminal, either.

tgjensen wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Also remember, 3rd edition was not representing a loot wagon statline. A looted land raider was not a loot wagon, it was an actual av14 all around, 255point land raider. It was never representing a av11 35pt model and it has no business being one in the current ork codex especially since we have battle wagon rules which are a better fit in every circumstance... We did have official loot wagons. fW rhinos and FW gun wagons which filled the hole in IA before the 4th edition codex hit. You are being obtuse about common sense to claim your 35pt land raider is legal, especially since the 3rd edition codex didn't allow that.

Now hold up! In 3rd edition you could loot anything from a Rhino to a Land Raider, and that was your looted wagon, using the rules from the correct entry that you took it from. Now that got simplified into a Rhino-esque catch-all statline in the new codex, yes - but as far as I know, GW has always embraced the concept that you can use your official, old edition models in the new editions, which makes your looted wagon - whatever official model you used to make it - legal to use. Those to me are the 'official' looted wagon models, setting a precedent for a wide range in size, and the FW one just another variant. So while I'd agree that a looted Land Raider would be more appropriate as a Battlewagon, I don't accept the idea that a Forgeworld model sets the only acceptable standard for a regular codex entry, when that entry already has legal models from previous editions. I mean, don't the Imperial Armour books specifically state that you should make sure your opponent is fine with playing with FW models? How can they then be considered the official legal standard?

Well, they do allow for older models to be used, but they expect you follow sensible 'Counts as' because sometimes unit rules change so much the old models are inappropriate. Looted wagons changed enough between 3rd and 4th to warrant some discretion the same way skarboyz, cyborks, flashgitz and tankbustaz did.

*3rd Edition Skarboyz have no rules and are nothing more than stylized Slugga boyz now.
*3rd Edition Flash Gitz were 1 wound AV6+ boyz with Big Shootas led by a Nob, they have no place in the current ruleset and are best transitioned to stylized Shoota boyz.
*3rd Edition Tankbustaz had Pistols and CCW and do not at all fit the current rules. These models are almost universally unsuited for any play in the current codex without conversions.
*3rd Edition Cyborks were 1 wound models and have almost no place in the current codex, not as Nobz, only as boyz if Mad Dok shows up. Again, Stylized slugga boyz.

Since in 3rd edition, the only land Raider variant legal for looting was the basic one with dual lascannons, using the rule of 'counts as' the best fit is a Zzap-equipped Battlewagon. Or modify your Land raider for 4th edition and BAM, it becomes a battlewagon as it is no longer a 12 year old model finding a home. It really has no place as a lootwagon just because it shared a name (technically it was a Looted Land Raider, not a Looted Wagon in 3rd, so they are not even the same model), especially since we have many examples of units who share names where the old models cannot work in the new ruleset.

And FW makes core codex rule models all the time. FW models are official, the ruleset need opponents consent. FW makes core codex Kommandos, the only Warboss biker and 2 trukks as well as the official looted wagon, a Rhino. Pretty much any Leman Russ, Chimera or Rhino-based tank will be a looted wagon, anything else is probably going to 'count as' a battlewagon.

And let's say you showed up with an actual old model from 3rd edition... You may get rule of cool, but because some other dude has a 12 year old model doesn't entitle TFGs to build modern cheatwagons. Those models, especially played in a way which is clearly an advantage will be banned by most TOs and refused to play by most actual real people whos ee MFA as dishonest and unacceptable. Rule of Cool gets your model on the table, it doesn't blind people to unfair or game-impacting tactics. The game simply ends.

As for this question. Clearly modeling for advantage. As for looted wagon, I'd say it should be 'wagon sized' and not 'battlewagon sized'. So that would eliminate things like the Land Raider, Monolith, Baneblade...etc.

So add me as your 3rd 'no' for that other thread.

Also I agree that trying to MFA and trying to gain an advantage to do so certainly makes you TFG and clearly WAAC. Thank the [Insert your races beliefs here] that we don't have players that try this in our area.

Breng77 wrote: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

Stress the 'if', otherwise it looks like you are misrepresenting his question.

BarBoBot wrote: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.

I would disagree. From a competitive play point of view, knowing the general principles of what the 40k community considers to be MFA in scratch built models, is a good thing -especially when GW does not put out a model for every codex choice.

Vague knowledge about largely subjective tournament guidelines leads to sloppy mistakes that cost wins. Competitive players try to avoid sloppy mistakes that cost wins

BarBoBot wrote: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.

meh, I'm not going to take the time to list and link what's wrong with this from a debate/discussion/logic POV.

Jimsolo wrote:If you model your scratchbuilt figure so that it conveys an advantage that the stock model does not possess, then you are modeling for advantage. I know that it's irritating to have your boyz behind the Squiggoth get shot at when they can't return fire, but that's the way it works.

This is also quite true, but rather black and white. It implies that any scratch built model must be identical in dimensions to the official model.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a +/- variance of 1-3% in the majority of assembled GW Rhinos. To be clear, if GW handed me perfectly assembled Rhino and I measured it's length, width and height, I'd bet that if I measured 100 Rhinos at the next Adeptacon, Novacon, etc., I would find at least half of them to be more than 1% larger or smaller in a dimension, but no more than 3%. I'm quite tempted to do this for a while at my FLGS.

In the case of Scratch built models, I would suggest a tolerance of +/- 10% with the proviso that if you plan to use it for a particular purpose, don't let your tolerance be off in a direction that benefits that purpose.
-If your homemade Open topped Assault Vehicles are going to be doing the pivot-for-extra-range thing, don't make them longer.
-If your scratch built shooty units don't require LOS, don't make them smaller to hide easier, etc

nkelsch wrote:Also remember, 3rd edition was not representing a loot wagon statline. A looted land raider was not a loot wagon, it was an actual av14 all around, 255point land raider. It was never representing a av11 35pt model

This is an extremely good point.

tgjensen wrote:Now hold up! In 3rd edition you could loot anything from a Rhino to a Land Raider, and that was your looted wagon, using the rules from the correct entry that you took it from. Now that got simplified into a Rhino-esque catch-all statline in the new codex, yes - but as far as I know, GW has always embraced the concept that you can use your official, old edition models in the new editions, which makes your looted wagon - whatever official model you used to make it - legal to use.

But it's not an official, old edition model. It's a model that was legal for an old edition codex entry, subtle difference. I'm not bothered by the statline change, but by the rules permitting its legality changing.

BarBoBot wrote:The problem is that he says he doesn't want to be TFG, but he wants to know exactly how far he can push the limits before becoming TFG. In reality, it's that exact attitude that makes him TFG.

No. Again, wanting to know the speed limit does not mean I want to speed. At worst, the OP seems to be WAAC. At best, he is asking, "What can I do and not get yelled at by angry, paranoid, intolerant opponents?"

foolishmortal wrote:

Breng77 wrote: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

Stress the 'if', otherwise it looks like you are misrepresenting his question.

So how am I misrepresenting his question:

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.

Reads to me as "can I model my Big Squiggoth with the intention of blocking more line of sight than the model actually does?"

My response to that is if you are asking if you can MODEL your model(squiggoth) to GAIN AN ADVANTAGE(Blocking more LOS), then the answer is no, in most cases. Asking does not make him a bad person, but but many of his recent arguments in threads come across as I want to model for advantage, because it is dumb that the rules don't agree with what a real life military would do in this case. The game is an abstract game. Essentially TLOS ignores IRL entirely (because things like forests really would block LOS, but we cannot model them as such and still use them), as do things like cover saves (should apply on the TO hit not to wound roll if more realistic.), as do many parts of the game (size of transports). Does it suck sometimes but you cannot use the IRL argument to allow modeling for some kind of advantage. My advice is model your models to look the way you want them to look (rather than attending to use them to abuse the rules), and if someone asks you to play them as per the official model you should have no issue with that.

foolishmortal wrote:

BarBoBot wrote:The problem is that he says he doesn't want to be TFG, but he wants to know exactly how far he can push the limits before becoming TFG. In reality, it's that exact attitude that makes him TFG.

No. Again, wanting to know the speed limit does not mean I want to speed. At worst, the OP seems to be WAAC. At best, he is asking, "What can I do and not get yelled at by angry, paranoid, intolerant opponents?"

Not come up with explicit tactics based around blocking LOS and then used non-standard-shaped models which clearly deviate from the source while exploiting them for maximum effect.

And using excuses like "the rules don't say I can't" and "12 years ago, someone, somewhere might have made a looted Landraider so I can make one down!" don't help people swallow that bitter pill.

One should attempt to find tactics which work with the current models opposed to exploiting custom models to make new tactics, that doesn't make you clever, and often gives an edge based upon trickery and deception by having models which allow things you wouldn't be allowed. saying "ah ha! You hid in my flyer's blindspot, but I modified my plane to angle so now I can shoot you" isn't tactics, that is just rude. Same with making short ADL so models who can't normally shoot can now shoot or making oversized tanks to block LOS or removing the ability to see under walkers or skimmers. Those are not tactics.

nkelsch wrote:
And FW makes core codex rule models all the time. FW models are official, the ruleset need opponents consent. FW makes core codex Kommandos, the only Warboss biker and 2 trukks as well as the official looted wagon, a Rhino. Pretty much any Leman Russ, Chimera or Rhino-based tank will be a looted wagon, anything else is probably going to 'count as' a battlewagon.

Actually, that Warboss is Sardsnark da Rippa. And the model (which is no longer available) you are talking about was called "Looted Rhino" not "Looted Wagon". Following your argumentation, it would be just as illegal to field a "Looted Rhino" as "Looted Wagen", as it is to field a "Looted Landraider" as "Looted Wagon".

On top of that, this thread is about a squiggoth counting as battlewagon. No one seems to have noticed that.

Breng77 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

Breng77 wrote: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

Stress the 'if', otherwise it looks like you are misrepresenting his question.

So how am I misrepresenting his question:

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.

Reads to me as "can I model my Big Squiggoth with the intention of blocking more line of sight than the model actually does?"

meh, sorry about that. I re-wrote that sentence several times. My final version 'lacked elegance'. Let me try again. "Yes, but keep in mind the OP's original question did not fall into this category. Some people in the thread are adressing the more generic OP OQ, while some people have wandered off into subtopics from the resulting discussion."

I do agree with your general sentiment about MFA though.

My advice is model your models to look the way you want them to look (rather than attending to use them to abuse the rules)

That advice is quite solid in a casual environment. IMO, less so in a competitive one.

if someone asks you to play them as per the official model you should have no issue with that.

Strongly agreed.

nkelsch wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
At best, he is asking, "What can I do and not get yelled at by angry, paranoid, intolerant opponents?"

Not come up with explicit tactics based around blocking LOS and then used non-standard-shaped models which clearly deviate from the source while exploiting them for maximum effect.

Agreed, as I and others have posted above.

My only problem with this sentiment is that many offering it seem to think the model's intent can somehow be ESP'd and/or the modeler himself can somehow present his intent for inspection without being subject to criticism. That's why I prefer objective restrictions rather than gut feeling adjudication. At competitive levels of play, this is largely handled subjectively by the TO. Hence, the reasonableness of the general OP original question.

The follow-up clarification was clearly MFA.

And using excuses like "the rules don't say I can't" and "12 years ago, someone, somewhere might have made a looted Landraider so I can make one down!" don't help people swallow that bitter pill.

meh, It's only a bitter pill if you have to swallow it. I don't think that's the case here. The OP's clarified, specific question here seems to be MFA in the eyes of most responders.

Hopefully he will catch on to the general principle without requiring 8 more posts.

Histrionics, probably won't help speed up the learning process.
Sadly, I think what would help is losing a game, match or being DQ'd from an event. Perhaps merely the disapproval of someone he respects.

Time will tell

 Jidmah wrote:


On top of that, this thread is about a squiggoth counting as battlewagon. No one seems to have noticed that.

No, he isn't. He is counting it as a FW Big Squiggoth. Like his other threads, he purposely buried the lead on what he was trying to do to get his desired feedback.

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)

So he is intending to use a Big Squiggoth ruleset in a tourney, but wants the LOS-blocking of the model extend all the way to the ground so you cannot see infantry behind it between the legs. Big Squiggoths will provide cover for most infantry, but not block LOS for most things. Just like skimmers and other walkers, you can see under them enough to gain LOS. His complaint is his models will be able to be shot, but not be able to see back since LOS is from the eyes and most models close to the squiggoth will have no LOS under the belly, but most models far away will have LOS to the feet of the infantry which is all they need.

It becomes a 1-way disadvantage cover for the ork player... Hence don't hide models you wish to shoot with behind a squiggoth, and accept you can be seen when behind a squiggoth. Not give the squiggoth a dress so he blocks LOS to the ground and can 100% hide models behind it which is a tactic which can't normally be done with that model.

And many places that allow FW rules require the official model and apply scrutiny to custom models which don't match the FW models. I know many tourneys who allow FW which would ban abusive custom squiggoths.

No. Again, wanting to know the speed limit does not mean I want to speed. At worst, the OP seems to be WAAC. At best, he is asking, "What can I do and not get yelled at by angry, paranoid, intolerant opponents?"

But that's not a good analogy to the question he's asked. You are allowed to move your car forward just asking how fast. You are not allowed to MFA he's asking if he models for x advantage is that allowed

This is more akin to say murder (not comparing level of offence here just the digital nature). He's essentially saying if my parents die I get loads of money. I want loads of money would it be murder if I cut the brake lines to their car? To which the answer is yes. He's then posted 8 threads with different if I do this which results in my parents death would that be murder. The essence being he's asking what he can do to kill his parents that he could get away with. Whilst this in itself is not committing murder these are sort of questions a murderer or sociopath would ask...

Modelling specifically to gain an in game advantage is the very definition of MFA. If his questions where if I modelled this this way would people be cool with it. The issues are it changes the game properties in this way but I would do x, y & z to mitigate that change. Then he's not TFG or MFA. But he categorically states the reason he is changing the model is to change the in game properties. This is by definition MFA and he's posted multiple threads about this which makes him TFG.

 FlingitNow wrote:

No. Again, wanting to know the speed limit does not mean I want to speed. At worst, the OP seems to be WAAC. At best, he is asking, "What can I do and not get yelled at by angry, paranoid, intolerant opponents?"

But that's not a good analogy to the question he's asked. You are allowed to move your car forward just asking how fast. You are not allowed to MFA he's asking if he models for x advantage is that allowed

Please consider that I am responding to both the initial question, and one of the the later questions raised in the discussion afterwards. Please don't conflate my answers.

my opinion again for clarity...

'can a scratch built model be larger than the GW original?' - Sure, but try to keep it +/- 10% and don't make it larger/small if it's most common / obvious use will take advantage of it being larger/smaller.

'can I model my X to block LOS to my Y since I don't like how the GW original model allows LOS under my X to my Y?' - No, this would be a near textbook example of MFA


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
This is more akin to say murder (not comparing level of offence here just the digital nature). He's essentially saying if my parents die I get loads of money. I want loads of money would it be murder if I cut the brake lines to their car? To which the answer is yes. He's then posted 8 threads with different if I do this which results in my parents death would that be murder. The essence being he's asking what he can do to kill his parents that he could get away with. Whilst this in itself is not committing murder these are sort of questions a murderer or sociopath would ask...

Try again with a less prejudicial analogy. You will better avoid a Strawman and might come up witha useful insight.

Keep in mind the nature of the competition. There are currently (to my knowledge) no hobbies based around killing one's parents for money better than someone else kills their own parents for money. Even less likely, there are no regularly scheduled events where there are rules above and beyond the basic rules for competitively killing your parents for money.

A footrace or hot-dog eating contest might work.

'can I model my X to block LOS to my Y since I don't like how the GW original model allows LOS under my X to my Y?' - No, this would be a near textbook example of MFA

This is what the OP has proposed though in numerous threads (another was can I remodel my Aegis so grots can see through it).

Try again with a less prejudicial analogy. You will better avoid a Strawman and might come up witha useful insight.

Keep in mind the nature of the competition. There are currently (to my knowledge) no hobbies based around killing one's parents for money better than someone else kills their own parents for money. Even less likely, there are no regularly scheduled events where there are rules above and beyond the basic rules for competitively killing your parents for money.

A footrace or hot-dog eating contest might work.

You were the one to bring law breaking in as an analogy. I just corrected yours to one that actually more accurately represents the questions the OP has asked.

Ok I'll play along with the foot race. It is illegal to trip someone in the race. The questions he has asked are like asking if I put an oil slick on his lane to make him slip up is that OK? Or how about if I tie is shoe laces together. Etc etc etc

He has specifically asked if he can remodel a model to gain an in game advantage, repeatedly. As you have stated that is textbook example of MFA...

This is very similar to a thread way back with Necrons before they were redone. I believe it was DashofPepper who was using a wraith-heavy army but he was relying on them being behind monoliths so that they couldn't be shot at. It turned out that some monoliths were packaged with flying bases, and some weren't, depending on when the kit was sold. If a monolith was on a flying base, the wraiths behind it could be shot at, but if it was just sitting on the ground they couldn't. It became quite a contentious issue, with accusations of cheating being thrown around, so my suggestion would be not to pursue this project, as it sounds like you want to make a larger squiggoth than is normally used so you can advance as many models as you can behind it without being shot at.

 FlingitNow wrote:
This is what the OP has proposed though in numerous threads (another was can I remodel my Aegis so grots can see through it).

And every time anyone proposes such things, the answer hopefully was, "hell no."

I am only answering the questions in from of me.
OP OQ - sure, within reason. blah, blah, here is what I see as reasonable
Specific MFA Q2 - hell no

You were the one to bring law breaking in as an analogy. I just corrected yours to one that actually more accurately represents the questions the OP has asked.

So you corrected it to reflect information outside the scope of the post? Try harder. My speeding analogy was directed at the OP's OQ.

I do agree that the more specific questions put the intent of the OP's OQ into a less favorable light.

Ok I'll play along with the foot race. It is illegal to trip someone in the race. The questions he has asked are like asking if I put an oil slick on his lane to make him slip up is that OK? Or how about if I tie is shoe laces together. Etc etc etc

Again, you keep referencing what he has asked in other threads. However, playing along, in all these foot-race cases, the answer is an obvious NO.

But what about something like "The rules say I can make my own footwear for the race. Can I make them larger than the Nike standard? How much larger can I make my footwear compared to the Nike standard?" The middle question is fairly close to the OP's OQ in this thread.

He has specifically asked if he can remodel a model to gain an in game advantage, repeatedly. As you have stated that is textbook example of MFA...

Yep, seems like, no disagreement here.



Please consider, there is a difference between answering all of a poster's questions (the reasonable ones as well as the silly ones), and characterizing a poster based on his questions, then dismissing him.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

So good luck using a mycetic spore against Peregrine...

Look, its simple. They are your toys and you may do what you wish to them. But remember this is a game. People don't have to play you. When everyone learns you constructed a model from scratch most will go, "cool! lemme see!" When everyone figures out why you constructed a model they way you did, they will start to cool their reactions towards you.

Specifically building a model to provide a game advantage is a jackass move. Would you appreciate it if I made my flyers on 1" bases, denying your AA guns LOS? No MFA isn't quite a rule, neither is hygiene, both are appreciation for your fellow gamers.

Peregrine, I have a mycetic spore. Its base is the size of a CD, and is a sphere with a diameter of roughly 5". Since GW does not make a spore yet, can I use mine if we play against each other?

 Dakkamite wrote:
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.

Since you're asking us, and not the TO, and you're not showing us a picture of what you're doing, we only have this statement to go by.

As it stands, it sounds like MFA. I don't know you, I've never played with you, you might be the nicest player on the planet and you give beer to all of your opponents.

However, that doesn't make this NOT sound like MFA. That's the best I can say with what information you've provided.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So good luck using a mycetic spore against Peregrine...

Sigh. Just keep ignoring the part where I've said that even though it's illegal RAW the vast majority of players will accept a reasonable conversion as a house rule. I will have no problem playing against a reasonable mycetic spore (roughly similar to a drop pod in size, since that's the closest unit with a model), but if you show up with a special LOS-blocking mycetic spore I'm not going to let you use it.