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.

Melevolence wrote:
(Except Orks because that's what Meks do! And our stuff is terrible anyway )

No, just because the ork fluff is ''funny'' doesn't mean you should MFA.

 Bobthehero wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
(Except Orks because that's what Meks do! And our stuff is terrible anyway )

No, just because the ork fluff is ''funny'' doesn't mean you should MFA.

I don't necessarily mean to "MFA". I'd never play a custom model without permission ANYWAY. And to be honest, Orks get no benefit from it. Our stuff is paper thin. So making it big means easy chances for you to blow it to kingdom come. But if someone made a cool, Orky model, I'd allow it to let them play with it. I don't condone people modeling for advantage. I do condone people making kick ass models.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Ive had people always try to pull stuff on me for my Heavy weapon teams not having LOS over the wall of an Aegis or a Skyshield, especially with my Steel Legion Heavy Bolters, where the guys are lying on their stomachs. They will say "ooh its got to be eye level on the model"

I've found a good solution is, regardless of whether a unit is stading, kneeling, or lying down, is to "count" all of a given unit as though they were standing, for the purposes of Line of Sight. If there's ever a dispute over this, all you need do is have 1 model in a neutral standing pose, which you can temporarily switch with the actual modell to resolve any disputes.

Land raiders are the only things I've seen this argued over in the wild. More specifically their side weapon mounts.
I magnetize mine, so if someone has a problem with it, I can just change it. I mount my lascannons and hurricane bolter in the back, and the flamestorm cannons in the front. That's the way I've always seen the GW models built.
I have seen people get into endless arguments about the placement of the weapons. Arguments made either way.
But putting the LC or hurricane bolter up front can give you more range on the weapons, and could be arguably modeling for advantage.
Putting the flamestorm cannons in the back, just make no sense, but if an opponent really insists, I just swap it out. Magnets are my friends.

 pwntallica wrote:
Land raiders are the only things I've seen this argued over in the wild. More specifically their side weapon mounts.
I magnetize mine, so if someone has a problem with it, I can just change it. I mount my lascannons and hurricane bolter in the back, and the flamestorm cannons in the front. That's the way I've always seen the GW models built.
I have seen people get into endless arguments about the placement of the weapons. Arguments made either way.
But putting the LC or hurricane bolter up front can give you more range on the weapons, and could be arguably modeling for advantage.
Putting the flamestorm cannons in the back, just make no sense, but if an opponent really insists, I just swap it out. Magnets are my friends.

Thats just silly though... youre putting them on the official sponsons for the weapon lol. Sure if you had the sponsons on extendable arms then id call foul, but just having them attached where they were designed to be is not modelling for advantage lol.

Next time someone makes that complaint, please slap them upside the head. From me.

Well, the issue is that different land raiders have mounts in different location. So particularly when it's a flamer, it can make a big difference using a proxy vs the actual chassis.

Niiru wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:
Land raiders are the only things I've seen this argued over in the wild. More specifically their side weapon mounts.
I magnetize mine, so if someone has a problem with it, I can just change it. I mount my lascannons and hurricane bolter in the back, and the flamestorm cannons in the front. That's the way I've always seen the GW models built.
I have seen people get into endless arguments about the placement of the weapons. Arguments made either way.
But putting the LC or hurricane bolter up front can give you more range on the weapons, and could be arguably modeling for advantage.
Putting the flamestorm cannons in the back, just make no sense, but if an opponent really insists, I just swap it out. Magnets are my friends.

Thats just silly though... youre putting them on the official sponsons for the weapon lol. Sure if you had the sponsons on extendable arms then id call foul, but just having them attached where they were designed to be is not modelling for advantage lol.

Next time someone makes that complaint, please slap them upside the head. From me.

The problem is that the sponsons can be mounted on two spots on the side. One is closer to the front. Not buy much, but a few inches of range can make a difference. There are also different versions of instructions that show them going in one spot or the other, or either. And even here on dakka I've seen the argument get heated.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/512602.page Last time it came up that I saw.

Also reminded me of the guy who had swapable clear plastic rods for his skimmers. One normal height, one really tall, and one really short. And I had seen him switch them before a game to fit the terrain.
For people wondering how that would be MFA. If your skimmer/jetbike/flyer has short ranged powerful weapons, say you went double HF land speeder. Being able to put a shorter base on it means it will more likely live to cross the table to melt a horde since it is not sticking out above cover. But if you took that landspeeder and put dual HB on it for example, you might be better off sticking out above things to make sure you can draw los with your under mounted HB, so you put it on the taller base.

Melevolence wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
(Except Orks because that's what Meks do! And our stuff is terrible anyway )

No, just because the ork fluff is ''funny'' doesn't mean you should MFA.

I don't necessarily mean to "MFA". I'd never play a custom model without permission ANYWAY. And to be honest, Orks get no benefit from it. Our stuff is paper thin. So making it big means easy chances for you to blow it to kingdom come. But if someone made a cool, Orky model, I'd allow it to let them play with it. I don't condone people modeling for advantage. I do condone people making kick ass models.

Modeling for advantage is hard to apply to orks given there is no standard config for ork stuff. No two ork vehicles are supposed to look alike anyway. Like i'm sure there are some advantages to using a hammerhead or a leman-russ as a battle-wagon than the actual battle-wagon model when modeling, but a battle-wagon is a battle-wagon even if its represented by a russ thats got a crows nest or is sporting enough guns to classify it as a battle-fortress.

And ork stuff isn't terrible its a matter of you get what you pay for points wise, something that is either going to amaze, disappoint, or blow up violently. Or do all three.

The Imperial Answer wrote:

And ork stuff isn't terrible its a matter of you get what you pay for points wise, something that is either going to amaze, disappoint, or blow up violently. Or do all three.

Often all in the same game.

Sometimes, all at the same time.

Dis is why i love da orks.

Modeling for advantage is hard to apply to orks given there is no standard config for ork stuff.

until you see a 20" long wagon that pivots turn one and lets them charge out .


That and two LR crusders that had weapons mounted on the same side and were moving sideways were probably the worse I have seen.

Makumba wrote:

Modeling for advantage is hard to apply to orks given there is no standard config for ork stuff.

until you see a 20" long wagon that pivots turn one and lets them charge out .


That and two LR crusders that had weapons mounted on the same side and were moving sideways were probably the worse I have seen.

Doesnt it have to pivot on its central point, to count as a pivot? Which would mean that sure it would still end up with 10" poking out of its deployment, but it would also have a few inches off the table edge. Which i would count as being a dead tank. Suicide turn 1.

The land raiders is an example of advantage/disadvantage, as it means you can approach from its weak side without it being able to return fire at all. Pincer attack ftw. But its still a pretty lame build.

I've been accused of modelling for advantage because instead of buying Ravager models, i modeled a Kabalite with a Dark Lance hanging off the side of a Raider on each side. Because it apparently gives me a *slightly* different LOS for the gun. Ridiculous, it just looks fething awesome!

Another thing is in tournaments people send me shady looks about Raiders that don't have the massive, stupid looking sail on their backs. The Raider has an anti-grav engine, the sail is just stupid looking, so i built mine without it and it looks more sleep looking. It's not like your allowed to target the mast anyway, but people seem to think i did it for some advantage.

My long standing twatface acquaintance (that is his actual nickname) Dan models his whole trynid infantry on half an inch of cork, his three carnifexes on top wrecked dreadnoughts.

Isn't that...a bad thing? Tyranids don't have good guns, so being tall means it is easier to shoot them or deny cover saves?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isn't that...a bad thing? Tyranids don't have good guns, so being tall means it is easier to shoot them or deny cover saves?

I supose it could be good on Hive Tyrants, who are shooty.

But the worst I've seen are enormous venomthropes (obese from overeating, surrounded by badly painted chewed-on corpses). Looks fluffy enough right? (although a bit stupid ).

It actuallt gives him an extra 2 inches of shrouded aura

It hasn't come up yet, but I figure one day someone is going to make a MFA comment about my hive tyrant - when the 4th edition codex dropped the Red Terror, I took mine and gave him a pair of wings to make into a flying dual-scythe tyrant. Now, three editions later, we've finally got an official flyrant model, who is much much bigger.

It's not something I sweat too much though.

I've seen laying down Wrathknights and kneeling/laying down Dreadknights. I actually played against a Tyranid player once who had his Mawlocks? The big critter that pops up out of the ground? Yeah, he had that on a huge base, with only a claw and it's head poking out of the base. Looked cool, but...

I've played a guy that shortened all his flyer bases. And there was the guy that put all his skimmers on 6" metal tubes

Sometimes, it's pretty obvious what the player was attempting to do. Other times, it's hard to tell. Like in the case of the Mawlock above- it was actually a well done base with a great paint job. It really looked like a bug was crawling out of the ground! The bad part about it was that using the True Line of Sight rules (the worst rules in the game of 40K), I could never shoot it if it was behind any piece of terrain higher then an inch.

Wraiths crawling on the ground, thathugetyranidthingwithalongspikytail on the ground to make a smaller target.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I've seen laying down Wrathknights and kneeling/laying down Dreadknights. I actually played against a Tyranid player once who had his Mawlocks? The big critter that pops up out of the ground? Yeah, he had that on a huge base, with only a claw and it's head poking out of the base. Looked cool, but...

I've played a guy that shortened all his flyer bases. And there was the guy that put all his skimmers on 6" metal tubes

Sometimes, it's pretty obvious what the player was attempting to do. Other times, it's hard to tell. Like in the case of the Mawlock above- it was actually a well done base with a great paint job. It really looked like a bug was crawling out of the ground! The bad part about it was that using the True Line of Sight rules (the worst rules in the game of 40K), I could never shoot it if it was behind any piece of terrain higher then an inch.

Thats cleaver way to use extra bits for a kit that expensive.

At best you could ask them to play by proxie size and state if there was a real one it would be x height and i would have LOS and stuff.
the modelers will be like. no problem
The TFGs will say but the game is TLOS and you know why they did it even if it looks good.

 Desubot wrote:
The manta is the 2feet by 2feet monstrosity that costs about 2 grand and is 2 grand in game points.

IF some one spends the money to use one as a Battle wagon then i would rather be on there good side.


Christmas coming and all

Just. Wow.

The manta also has one slight dis-advantage.

According to its rules, when its the target of fire, anything that can hit it only rolls for damage. Its so big it cannot be missed by enemy fire if being shot at.

There are different views. ive seen people ry MFA over even the slightest little alteration from "stock" just to be a jerk or just to deny you the use of a model or unit they are not prepared to face or because they know it will disrupt your army and put you at a disadvantage in some way..

I've seen people who will cry it in order to have an excuse if they lose and to make themselves look more "genious" if they win against such odds.

I've seen people who cant seem to comprehend that many conversions can offer more disadvantages than advantage.

I've seen people who actually do MFA.

I've seen people who model for the rule of cool and not care about any advantaes.
I've seen people model for the rule of cool not caring about any advantages who are willing to act as though it were stock in terms of everything in game.

A while back, I actually saw someone say that it is impossible to MFA or outlandish conversions!

Usually, these threads turn into flame fests but here goes. I'll put forth my usual post....

I take each instance on it's own merit based on the person and the actual conversion. case by case basis and all that. If I feel they are trying to cheat me this way, I just dont play them again. If I feel it is rule of cool, I find its a great conversation to discuss it and swap stories and tips.

The ONLY time I found anyone complain about any of my conversions/counts as is when i used the giant servo skull dice holders that came in the dice tin as jokero. I painted them up and based them adding to my fluff that MY jokero are smaller spider monkey sized and build those things as their persnal transports to battle and the weapons are built into their transports. The others were mad at any advantage or disadvantage but that I managed to save so much $. twelve of them cost WAY less than twelve of the official model They werent prepared for them as they didnt think anyone locally who played grey knights could afford more than one or two of them.

One of the few (if only) places I have seen it come up, and actually been clearly an advantage is a Soul Grinder with all its legs close together. The smaller footprint makes deep-striking it a bit easier, and possibly harder to charge depending on where you are coming from.

Niiru wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well to be fair it think there was on situation iv heard of where a guy made a BW that had these huge side panels to BLOS on the guys walking behind them.


@Niiru Well it would of meant a turn for the Tau to walk around the piece just to shoot which can be a big deal.

Wasn't there an old ork rule where a transport could carry as many models that could be piled on top of it, but if any fell off they sustained a wound? So making a huge wide wagon would have been appropriate lol.

I have a feeling it was gorkamorka, but still. Thats the kind of rules orks SHOULD HAVE.

But yeh that is one situation where I can understand why its an advantage. The wagon would be a big target anyway, so maximising its ability to hide stuff is good. The downside would be that the orks behind the wagon also dont have LOS for shooting, but if they are assaulting orks it wouldnt be much of an issue.

I think thats gorka morka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had two hellhounds that used King Tiger turrents with the flamers on the end. However I would point this out at the beginning of the game and note I had a line painted on the barrel where the HH turrent would normally end and would use that line. Never had an issue.

It wasn't ONLY Gorkamorka. That rule existed for the 2nd edition Battlewagon as well.

Melevolence wrote:

Battlewagons don't have wings or extending walls :p

So, You've never met my Mad Mek Mordekain/(More-Dakka-ing)!

Hey, we'z gettin' shot up!
Hide behind da wall!
But den we can't reach da foe to krump 'em!
AHA! Walls on Wheels! For all your not-gettin-shot-while-chargin'-da-foe needs! Merely 1 toof per boy! Roll up, roll up! Get behind a wall-on-wheels here!

 docdoom77 wrote:
It wasn't ONLY Gorkamorka. That rule existed for the 2nd edition Battlewagon as well.

Forgot about that. Nothing says loving like a virus bomb in those circumstances...

 Tamwulf wrote:
I've seen laying down Wrathknights and kneeling/laying down Dreadknights. I actually played against a Tyranid player once who had his Mawlocks? The big critter that pops up out of the ground? Yeah, he had that on a huge base, with only a claw and it's head poking out of the base. Looked cool, but...

I've played a guy that shortened all his flyer bases. And there was the guy that put all his skimmers on 6" metal tubes

Sometimes, it's pretty obvious what the player was attempting to do. Other times, it's hard to tell. Like in the case of the Mawlock above- it was actually a well done base with a great paint job. It really looked like a bug was crawling out of the ground! The bad part about it was that using the True Line of Sight rules (the worst rules in the game of 40K), I could never shoot it if it was behind any piece of terrain higher then an inch.

Saw guy recently with his flyers on telescoping metal rods that could extend to over 2 feet, quite clever actually. He would use it like that when he flew over buildings and so it actually was very useful AND made it easier to see when shooting (i always think that flyers shouldnt get cover unless its something like you are adjacent to a building shooting up and through it, since you know, they are hundreds of feet in the air)

 Frazzled wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
It wasn't ONLY Gorkamorka. That rule existed for the 2nd edition Battlewagon as well.

Forgot about that. Nothing says loving like a virus bomb in those circumstances...

We banned Virus grenades and the Virus Outbreak card in our 2nd edition games. It wasn't fun to win/lose on turn 1 with a single item. In white dwarf, they straight up told players to tear up their virus outbreak cards. Good advice.

 docdoom77 wrote:
It wasn't ONLY Gorkamorka. That rule existed for the 2nd edition Battlewagon as well.

We had a guy out here who taped a KFC bucket onto his battle wagon chassis and would through his whole army into the thing.

It was hilarious especially when that thing blew up

I model Orygn for my Arbites with Necomunda cyber-mastiffs on 40mm bases. I was a game and they were in some ruins and my opponent said that if |I had used the real models he could draw LOS. I was like "of course shoot away" I thought everybody used the real model approx size for all conversions.