Ammo runts on Icarus las cannon

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.

**EVIL INC**

that is no exaggeration. there are indeed (even you must admit if your even a little bit honest) players who will cry MFA when there is no actual advantage there to be had.
If you would like to discuss exactly what constitutes MFA and what constitutes conversions for coolness sake, Start a separate thread on that topic. I am sure it would get a number of replies.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
that is no exaggeration. there are indeed (even you must admit if your even a little bit honest) players who will cry MFA when there is no actual advantage there to be had.
If you would like to discuss that, by all means start a thread on it. I am sure it will get plenty of replies. Of course, that is off topic in this particular thread.

It's not really off topic, so I'll leave it here for now.
No, there's no such thing as MFA because of a different rivet count, which is actually what you said. Which means it was an exaggeration.

There is an advantage to be had by having grits shoot over an ADL, so yes - that would be modeling for advantage. If you don't put grits behind it I won't care or say a word. If you do, and expect them to shoot, I will note that you've modeled for advantage.

**EVIL INC**

As I said before,. there ARE players who will cry MFA over the slightest deviation from the basic out of the box model even if there is no actual "advantage" to be had in order to keep aother player from using a model that would make it harder to win against, so no, that was NOT an exaggeration at all.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
As I said before,. there ARE players who will cry MFA over the slightest deviation from the basic out of the box model even if there is no actual "advantage" to be had in order to keep aother player from using a model that would make it harder to win against, so no, that was NOT an exaggeration at all.

If there's no advantage to be had then it's not modeling for advantage. So no, there are no reasonable players who would say that.
If you can find me one person who will admit to calling MFA because the number of rivets is different I'll publicly apologize.
Until then all you were trying to do is stir people up hoping no one would call you on it.

And you continue to do it - "that model would make it harder to win against" harder than what? The stock one? Is that because there's an advantage inherent in the way it's modeled?

**EVIL INC**

So you are saying that not a single person in the ENTIRE world is TFG who would cry MFA if an opponent converted a model to be different from the "stock" one. Huh, whoda thunk it?

Actually, I do remember seeing someone who would. You. If the rivets on the top of a model would normally be at the eye level of a model behind it and thus blocking it's LOS and the removal of said rivet would allow it to see over, the model would have a different number of rivets and you would call MFA.
here is one of your quotes admitting it.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is an advantage to be had by having grits shoot over an ADL, so yes - that would be modeling for advantage. If you don't put grits behind it I won't care or say a word. If you do, and expect them to shoot, I will note that you've modeled for advantage.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
So you are saying that not a single person in the ENTIRE world is TFG who would cry MFA if an opponent converted a model to be different from the "stock" one. Huh, whoda thunk it?

Which isn't what you said.

Actually, I do remember seeing someone who would. You. If the rivets on the top of a model would normally be at the eye level of a model behind it and thus blocking it's LOS and the removal of said rivet would allow it to see over, the model would have a different number of rivets and you would call MFA.
here is one of your quotes admitting it.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is an advantage to be had by having grits shoot over an ADL, so yes - that would be modeling for advantage. If you don't put grits behind it I won't care or say a word. If you do, and expect them to shoot, I will note that you've modeled for advantage.

So it's not about rivets, it's about LoS being allowed when it normally isn't.
And how is that not literally modeling for advantage? In addition - a rivet blocking LoS wouldn't matter - move the model slightly to the left or right and he could see anyway.
I wouldn't call it MFA because of a missing rivet (as your original post claimed). I'd call it MFA because a model that could not normally see (if there was one) could after the modification.

**EVIL INC**

rigeld2 wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
So you are saying that not a single person in the ENTIRE world is TFG who would cry MFA if an opponent converted a model to be different from the "stock" one. Huh, whoda thunk it?

Which isn't what you said.
Which is EXACTLY what i said.

Actually, I do remember seeing someone who would. You. If the rivets on the top of a model would normally be at the eye level of a model behind it and thus blocking it's LOS and the removal of said rivet would allow it to see over, the model would have a different number of rivets and you would call MFA.
here is one of your quotes admitting it.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is an advantage to be had by having grits shoot over an ADL, so yes - that would be modeling for advantage. If you don't put grits behind it I won't care or say a word. If you do, and expect them to shoot, I will note that you've modeled for advantage.

So it's not about rivets, it's about LoS being allowed when it normally isn't.
And how is that not literally modeling for advantage? In addition - a rivet blocking LoS wouldn't matter - move the model slightly to the left or right and he could see anyway.
I wouldn't call it MFA because of a missing rivet (as your original post claimed). I'd call it MFA because a model that could not normally see (if there was one) could after the modification.
So you WOULd call MFA for a different number of rivets.

**rigeld2**

No, I'd call MFA because a model should not be able to see over the stock model, but can over the modified one. The number of rivets is irrelevant.

**EVIL INC**

And if the reason that that models could see was because of the removal of a rivet, you would be calling MFA because of the model having a different number of rivets.

**pretre**

EVIL INC wrote:
And if the reason that that models could see was because of the removal of a rivet, you would be calling MFA because of the model having a different number of rivets.

If you changed the stock model in a way to gain a discernible advantage then, by definition, it is modelling for advantage. Whether that means one removed rivet (unlikely) or stacking grots, it is the same.

**EVIL INC**

that was my point. Many players will 'claim" a conversion is MFa when the person who converted it had no intention of it getting an advantage and the person accusing them of it knows full well that it was not done for advantage either and is only crying MFA to deny the use of it (for example, they dont want to face a flyrant and is crying MFA citing the use of dragon wings instead of official tryanid wings).Far too many abuse the term MFA when they know full well that MFA was never intended and often gives far more DISadvantages than any perceived advantages.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
And if the reason that that models could see was because of the removal of a rivet, you would be calling MFA because of the model having a different number of rivets.

No, that's incorrect. I'd be saying its because of the LoS issue.
In addition - what you're doing here is akin to me asking if you've stopped beating your wife yet. You're attempting to twist a phrase to get an out of context agreement for no reason.

Or if I said you always measure 12" when you move. It'd be absolutely true - it's just that you only do that when you move Assault Marines (or other 12" movers). But the original statement taken out of context makes you look like a horrible cheat. This would be rude (hence why it's an example and I'm not doing it). Very much like what you're attempting now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
often gives far more DISadvantages than any perceived advantages.

You bring this up a lot - why is it relevant how disadvantageous it is? Have you heard of risk vs reward?

**pretre**

EVIL INC wrote:
that was my point. Many players will 'claim" a conversion is MFa when the person who converted it had no intention of it getting an advantage and the person accusing them of it knows full well that it was not done for advantage either and is only crying MFA to deny the use of it (for example, they dont want to face a flyrant and is crying MFA citing the use of dragon wings instead of official tryanid wings).Far too many abuse the term MFA when they know full well that MFA was never intended and often gives far more DISadvantages than any perceived advantages.

It's not that hard.

Does your modelling gain a discernable advantage? Dragon wings on a Tyrant gain no advantage. Using a termagant to counts-as your tyrant and adding gargoyle wings to it? Discernable advantage.

If someone is saying MFA when there is no advantage, that's just silly. They might as well say MFA for stock tactical marines.

**EVIL INC**

rigeld2 wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
And if the reason that that models could see was because of the removal of a rivet, you would be calling MFA because of the model having a different number of rivets.

No, that's incorrect. I'd be saying its because of the LoS issue.
In addition - what you're doing here is akin to me asking if you've stopped beating your wife yet. You're attempting to twist a phrase to get an out of context agreement for no reason.
No, that IS correct (I can do this forever if you like. The truth will never change), The rivet that previously blocked LOS and was removed because the player did not like the "riety" look is now gone allowing the model to see causes there to be a different number of rivets. Lets see, I'll make sure and do the math 10-1 = 9 ok, thats correct now for the test 9<10, again correct now since 9 is less than 10, by definition, it is a different number. So YES, you would be complaining about a different number of rivets.
Saying a model with a jump pack movs 12 inches while a model "on foot" moves 6 inches is perfectly correct and is what i would say.

Or if I said you always measure 12" when you move. It'd be absolutely true - it's just that you only do that when you move Assault Marines (or other 12" movers). But the original statement taken out of context makes you look like a horrible cheat. This would be rude (hence why it's an example and I'm not doing it). Very much like what you're attempting now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
often gives far more DISadvantages than any perceived advantages.

You bring this up a lot - why is it relevant how disadvantageous it is? Have you heard of risk vs reward?[
yes, risk vs reward is a common concept. Lets say I convert a dev marine model to have it's head on the end of a 24' dowel rod so that it has a REALLY long neck and can see the whoe board and shoot at anything while remaining hidden behind a building. All reward, no risk. Now, take the same marine and convert it to stand on his head, he would be much lowering his reward and greatly increasing the risk. two totally seperate things.. when a conversion confers a greater number of disadvantages that ae more game influanceing than a fewr number of advantages (or none at all) that are less game affecting, it issaid to be giving more disadvantages than advantages. many players just dont care but do it anyway because it looks cool or fits the fluff better./quote]

**rigeld2**

So you do admit that you move models 12"? Cool.
I will never call someone out for a missing (or added) rivet.

**nosferatu1001**

Evil Inc - please learn to use quotes properly. It isnt that tricky, and makes your misrepresentations easier to read.

**EVIL INC**

Yes, i see that I am being misrepresented. I've gotten used to that.
You will use quotes how you wish, I will how I wish. I appreciate your concern on both counts.

and yes, I admit that i often move my jump pack models models 12 inches. I also move my normal models 6 inches and my flyers well over 12 inches. I you decide to read the BRB, you will find that the rules for how far what model or model type can move in a turn are very specifically laid out for you in black and white. Going further, I often move my models for miles. After all, they have to get to the shop for tournies somehow.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, i see that I am being misrepresented. I've gotten used to that.
You will use quotes how you wish, I will how I wish. I appreciate your concern on both counts.

and yes, I admit that i often move my jump pack models models 12 inches. I also move my normal models 6 inches and my flyers well over 12 inches. I you decide to read the BRB, you will find that the rules for how far what model or model type can move in a turn are very specifically laid out for you in black and white. Going further, I often move my models for miles. After all, they have to get to the shop for tournies somehow.

Do you now understand the problem with taking a statement out of context?

**EVIL INC**

You instigated the conversation and i pointed out how a rivet COULD change LOS. you agreed that it could. Therefore, there is the possibility according to your own words, that you would call MFA over a different number of rivets. There is no out of context there at all. The rules for movement are laid out in black and white in the rulebook. There is no 'interpretation or "context" of them at all.

**rigeld2**

EVIL INC wrote:
You instigated the conversation and i pointed out how a rivet COULD change LOS. you agreed that it could. Therefore, there is the possibility according to your own words, that you would call MFA over a different number of rivets.

No, that's a lie. I would call MFA over the line of sight issue according to my own words.

There is no out of context there at all. The rules for movement are laid out in black and white in the rulebook. There is no 'interpretation or "context" of them at all.

No out of context? Cool. So you do move your models 12". Man, that's twice what normal models are allowed. I'm amazed people let you get away with that.

**EVIL INC**

it is the number of rivets that is causing your LOS issue so you are calling it because of the number of rivets.

Yes, this weekend I will be moving y models well over 12 inches, i will be moving them for miles.
if you are unable to interact with me politely, feel free to use the ignore button at the top.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To steer us back on topic,
your best bet is to put the ADL around an obj and the icarus at the end of the wall. Each turn walk a single grot out to shoot the gun. At most, the enemy will kill that single grot (not even enough for a leadership test) and you will get to fire it each turn and claim the objective at the end of the game.

**nosferatu1001**

No, evil, you have substituted the reason -LOS- with the cause. That isn't using rigelds own words therefore

**Britneyfan12**

there are indeed (even you must admit if your even a little bit honest) players who will cry MFA when there is no actual advantage there to be had.

Britneyfan12: Of course you could use the FW grots as ammo runts and whatnot, they arent for vehicles only. Many of those would be cool as big gunz krew. No where does it states its for vehicles only, they can be used as ammo runtz, oilers, riggers, big gunz krew, coolness, one or two might qualify as an orderly etc. I dont think I will ever meet a person in RL that would have a problem with be fielding the wrench wielding grot as a grot oiler for instance.

nosferatu1001: Yes, and all the pictures show them crewing....vehicles.

Nkelsch: Crew for weapons only mountable on vehicles. As soon as you field a Big Zzap gun or have rules for multi-wound grots with 2 models per base, feel free to field that model. It is literally stacking two of the same model on top of each other for height and calling it one. If I did that with any other unit in the game, people would question it.

Nkelsch: Maybe you should be fielding Buzzgob's grot oiler as a big guns crew too? Sometimes models are cinematic embellishments, Especially grots for vehicles. It doesn't mean you can field them as something else simply because you want to. Those are clearly released as vehicle-mounted models which mean they are part of the gun or grot riggers.

Unless there was a misunderstanding, and nosferatu and Nkelsh was specifically talking about the 2-grot-high model and not the other grot crews, then yes, some people will complain about not using the exact model.
I would have no problems with fielding Lunk (one of Buzzgobs oilers) as a big gunz krew, but not Nitnuckle, as he is too tall. (ok, if I were to field Nitknuckle anyway, then he should be treated as a standard grot concerning TLoS and whatnot, and in the case of a conflict anyway, the benefit of doubt should go to the opponent)

**EVIL INC**

yes, we have a poster who will call MFA for so much as a different number of rivets on a model by his own admission.
This is a demonstration of why you need to be carefull when converting models, there will always be someone who accuses you of MFA no matter how minor it is if they think that they will gain themselves an advantage.
The best bet in this situation would be to put the ADL around an objective and place the gun on one ofthe ends. That way,you can just walk out a single grot to fire it every turn and only lose that single grot per turn and at the end of the game, fire the gun every turn (unless your opponent is smart enough to just target the gun) and claim the objective.
For using the rigger grots and all, It is just not worth the trouble because as you can see, players will argue till the cows come home and it just is not worth the argument.

**pretre**

EVIL INC wrote:
yes, we have a poster who will call MFA for so much as a different number of rivets on a model by his own admission.

No, we don't.

rigeld2 wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
You instigated the conversation and i pointed out how a rivet COULD change LOS. you agreed that it could. Therefore, there is the possibility according to your own words, that you would call MFA over a different number of rivets.

No, that's a lie. I would call MFA over the line of sight issue according to my own words.

You just try to keep forcing your agenda by misinterpreting people's statements. The only person who called MFA over the rivets alone was some person you were talking about not on the board.

**EVIL INC**

He can push his agenda all he likes. he made a statement and I called him on it. Making excuses for him doesnt help things along. It doesnt matter because that is his right to feel that way and no one is faulting him forit. He can feel as he pleases and "call MFA or not as he prefers under any circumstances.
The point of the thread is about grots and the ADL line, not his calling MFA over rivets. ...

The best bet in this situation would be to put the ADL around an objective and place the gun on one ofthe ends. That way,you can just walk out a single grot to fire it every turn and only lose that single grot per turn and at the end of the game, fire the gun every turn (unless your opponent is smart enough to just target the gun) and claim the objective.
For using the rigger grots and all, It is just not worth the trouble because as you can see, players will argue till the cows come home and it just is not worth the argument.

**grendel083**

EVIL INC wrote:
you can just walk out a single grot to fire it every turn and only lose that single grot per turn

Move and fire with a heavy weapon? Not a great plan...

**EVIL INC**

Dont have my rulebook handy. I dont hink it has the "heavy" characteristic. I could be wrong on that though. I seem to remember someone doing something like that and telling me that and I just accepted it without looking it up.

**grendel083**

You should have checked.
It is a Heavy.

**EVIL INC**

My bad. Good catch. In that case, i'd say have the tender man it or just have a seperate squad there. The dakka squad (cant think of the name also behind the wall, might make an opponent choose between the grot on the gun or the dakka unit.