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.

 easysauce wrote:

First of all, the ruleset is permissive, so any mention of "the rules doesnt say you cant" is faulty. Please dont do this.

If the Fireraptor is assembled as instructions dictate, its not 3".
If you assemble it askew/banking/looping or whatever you CAN get within 3" and obviously have gained a advantage through modeling.

 Bla_Ze wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

First of all, the ruleset is permissive, so any mention of "the rules doesnt say you cant" is faulty. Please dont do this.

If the Fireraptor is assembled as instructions dictate, its not 3".
If you assemble it askew/banking/looping or whatever you CAN get within 3" and obviously have gained a advantage through modeling.

I didnt ask for a negative to be proven, dont assert i did when i didnt please.

the instructions are not rules, so when I tell you they are not rules, thats not the same as me saying "find a rule saying I cant"

Not only do they not actually instruct you on many steps of models, nor rules that dictate the final pose of any model... if the instructions dont include ":step 5 put a plasma gun on the right arm at 90 degrees" that doesnt mean you cant have a plasma gun

they also do not dictate that every joint be 90 degrees, and they are not exhaustive, other wise any model without instructions that explicitly put it in that *one* pose with that weapon ect are illegal.



RAW what im saying is fine, would that be HIWPI?

for what its worth, In game I could care less i generally just go with what the other guy wants, but I have had a guy get really upset at the when I mentioned their raptor was more then 3" away from the ground objectives, so I played he could cap it. I have also had people get really upset when my vendetta capped stuff (even though it has a hatch at the back that reaches within 3") so i didnt let it cap it.

my HIWIPI is whatever we both agree to before hand, but RAW is as ive said.. you cannot quote instructions as rules any more then I can quote fluff or fan fics as rules.

Easy sauce,

The basic distinction that you're failing to make is that the base is part of the model. For example, if you tilted or lowered the model on a flying base to be closer to the ground (even if just a wing was angled) that would also allow you to claim cover saves in situations where you would not otherwise be able to (modeling for advantage)

This would be exactly like modeling a flyer on a higher base and being able to see over a tall wall, for example. The base is part of the model, and altering the elevation of any part of the model is the definition of modeling for advantage if the standard model would not have been that way.

You're welcome to play it either way (as is anyone) but claiming it to be supported by the rules or condoned by major tournaments is misleading. I could check with any number of TO and feel quite confident that they would rule exactly the same way

 easysauce wrote:

raw you can model your flyer to have hull within 3" of the ground

perfectly legal by RAW

there is no RAW against putting a flyer on an angle

legal by RAW pose.

So please quote the rule being broken, or admit you are bringing a non RAW related argument up.

please quote the rule saying every model, assembled using all the original components, in original size, has to by RAW be in the *pose*

thats fine if you want to have a non RAW related rules discussion.

RAW what im saying is fine

but RAW is as ive said..

Can you quote a written rule from the rulebook in this matter?

Hmmm, this discussion got interesting. Firstly, there's not a set height per RAW. They are supplied with a flying stand, and have to be modeled to show that they're flying, but I've never seen anything that says they must be at that height.

Secondly, if they are hovering they become treated as a 'Skimmer'. To my logic this means the model can safely be assumed to have transitioned to a lower altitude, since for rules purposes it's now at the same altitude as a wave serpent or devilfish type vehicle....

It certainly seems to be a grey area RAW, however the fact that when it hovers it becomes a skimmer indicates to me that the entire purpose is to enter a lower altitude (thus why you don't need a skyfire rule to hit it).

Maybe I'm looking at this too logically though.

 Kajaki War Pig wrote:
Hmmm, this discussion got interesting. Firstly, there's not a set height per RAW. They are supplied with a flying stand, and have to be modeled to show that they're flying, but I've never seen anything that says they must be at that height.

Secondly, if they are hovering they become treated as a 'Skimmer'. To my logic this means the model can safely be assumed to have transitioned to a lower altitude, since for rules purposes it's now at the same altitude as a wave serpent or devilfish type vehicle....

It certainly seems to be a grey area RAW, however the fact that when it hovers it becomes a skimmer indicates to me that the entire purpose is to enter a lower altitude (thus why you don't need a skyfire rule to hit it).

Maybe I'm looking at this too logically though.

You are applying fluff logic. From a RaW standpoint, there is no physical change to the model's height on the table when it changes back and forth to Hover mode.

 luke1705 wrote:
Easy sauce,

The basic distinction that you're failing to make is that the base is part of the model. For example, if you tilted or lowered the model on a flying base to be closer to the ground (even if just a wing was angled) that would also allow you to claim cover saves in situations where you would not otherwise be able to (modeling for advantage)

This would be exactly like modeling a flyer on a higher base and being able to see over a tall wall, for example. The base is part of the model, and altering the elevation of any part of the model is the definition of modeling for advantage if the standard model would not have been that way.

You're welcome to play it either way (as is anyone) but claiming it to be supported by the rules or condoned by major tournaments is misleading. I could check with any number of TO and feel quite confident that they would rule exactly the same way

right, TO's will rule it one way or another as it should be, but that isnt a RAW discussion, thats HIWPI. Ive seen TO's rule it both ways, I dont care how they rule it, as long as its done ahead of time and the same way for everyone.

so do I count all my kneeling models as standing,

or count all my standing models as kneeling?

both are MFA in different ways according to you, as the elevation has been "altered" despite using stock unaltered GW parts, one gets more cover, one gets better LOS.

People can choose to pose their dudes with arms out, or in awkward poses that keep them from being hit by blasts as much, this is also MFA according to you, but GW obviously intends for us to have some leeway putting models together.

Someone can have an infantry model with his arms raised up to the sky, this is also MFA as he can now be close to objectives above him...

model that same dude with arms down, MFA to get better cover!


once we start claiming that a model, assembled to the original specifications/size is MFA, then everything is MFA in some way. You choose the taller dudes, MFA, you choose shorter ones? MFA.

you are also literally claiming that there is one, and only one, legal pose that a model can be assembled in.

People draw the *arbitrary* line between modelling for advantage, at different places, its not a rule book concept, so its understandable that everyone has their own version.

If its MFA simply because the model gets an advantage from how its put together, then many models cannot be put together without gaining some sort of advantage.

How do I have to put together my knight/MC/ect so that the gun is positioned according to RAW, so im not MFA?

after, according to you, if I put the flamer near the front, Im MFA because now it has a longer range to the front...

but if I put it in the middle, hey, still MFA, cause now its more versatile...

we have choices on how to model our plastic dudes, poses arnt something set in stone, if you call out a flyer model as MFA for simply being in a dynamic pose, then you better call out every single IK/MC/ect that doesnt have its gun dead center on the base too, every kneeling infantry, is MFA by your definition.

 Kriswall wrote:


You are applying fluff logic. From a RaW standpoint, there is no physical change to the model's height on the table when it changes back and forth to Hover mode.

Hardly fluff logic, it's actually the only thing based on rules as discussed so far. MFA doesn't exist RaW, Proper height of a flyer doesn't exist RaW, the only thing that is kinda there is that it switches to a hover, much like those other vehicles I mentioned. The entire height thing is kinda nonsense, simply because if a pilot was attempting to seize the objective, he would obviously lower the aircraft.... It's obvious it's status and thus performance has changed based on RaW.

All things considered, this debate has gotten kinda absurd lol

Easiest solution to this problem. The rules say players agree to the height of objectives prior to start. Just agree all objectives are infinitely tall, or model 6" high objectives and bring those to be your objectives during a game. There is no "standard objective" or even guidance as to what an objective's dimensions are. So, simple solution agree to a standard size prior to game time or model your objectives so you can capture them.

 easysauce wrote:
you are claiming that every model is designed with a certain pose in mind, which has no RAW backing

Sorry to burst your "Space Marine sniper lying flat on his base so he's not higher than 0.5" and can hide" bubble, but there IS RaW on which models to use:

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.

By RaW, you need the miniatures pictured in your Codex to represent the models in your game.

THIS THREAD might also enlighten you.

The space marine Codex shows a Scout with Missile Launcher crouching, so having a Scout crouching with a Missile Launcher is legal. Same for the Marine with ML, or the "jumping" Harlequin Solitaire, or using the Games Day model on a very large base as a "Captain with power fist and plasma pistol". Completely legal.

Modifying the legs of your marines so that they are all kneeling? Not Legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kajaki War Pig wrote:
MFA doesn't exist RaW, Proper height of a flyer doesn't exist RaW,

Sorry, but no, the rules require you to use "Citadel Models", modelled as they are in their Codex. MFA IS breaking the rules.

I'm on neither side of this (in reference to fliers), but your underlining of the quote has the word 'examples' in it. That means it is one of many ways it could be built.
If you own 10 legs sets which are crouching you can indeed make an entire kneeling tactical squad. They do not have to be used solely for the ML carrier.
If you had to model every single model as ones provided in picture in the codex then conversion of characters would be entirely illegal.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I'm on neither side of this (in reference to fliers), but your underlining of the quote has the word 'examples' in it. That means it is one of many ways it could be built.
If you own 10 legs sets which are crouching you can indeed make an entire kneeling tactical squad. They do not have to be used solely for the ML carrier.
If you had to model every single model as ones provided in picture in the codex then conversion of characters would be entirely illegal.

Indeed it would, which is why you'd have to be TFG or similar to enforce the RaW as i've described it.
Of course there should be a large versatility of options. And as i have said, i'd be the first to argue for a change of base or model.

But the RaW does exist and you need specific permission to do things in the 40K ruleset. There is permission to model Flyers on their flight stands as can ben seen in the Codex, but you will need to find permission to model then at 25 Degrees if that is how you want to mount them "by RaW"

Finally, "examples" are rules: Allies of Convenience section:

Units from the same army that are Allies of Convenience treat each other as ‘enemy units’ that cannot be charged, shot, attacked in close combat, or targeted with psychic powers.
This means, for example, that units:
• Cannot move with 1" of an Allies of Convenience model.
• Etc.

So the Battle brother's allowance of "Can embark on each other’s Transport vehicles" is "just an Example". I am quite sure that you would find more than 1 user on Dakka using this "example" as RaW though...

Fair point.

 easysauce wrote:

Fallacy, easysauce.
A flyer can still score when assembled without modifications for scoring advantage.
Objectives on hills high terrain, or on/in buildings can be scored.

Space marines are not vehicles are not don't have rules on how to measure to the model, but rather the base.
If a dark eldar play modeled his reaver jetbikes to be half as tall on the jet bike stand, it is MFA.

Modeling a 25 degree bank gives you a scoring advantage.
Modeling a 25 degree dive gives you a huge arc of fire advantage (see rapid firing hurricane bolter side sponsons).

Nobody is even arguing don't model like that.
I would just measure as if the model was level for scoring/shooting, i.e. without advantage.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Fallacy, easysauce.
A flyer can still score when assembled without modifications for scoring advantage.
Objectives on hills high terrain, or on/in buildings can be scored.

Space marines are not vehicles are not don't have rules on how to measure to the model, but rather the base.
If a dark eldar play modeled his reaver jetbikes to be half as tall on the jet bike stand, it is MFA.

Modeling a 25 degree bank gives you a scoring advantage.
Modeling a 25 degree dive gives you a huge arc of fire advantage (see rapid firing hurricane bolter side sponsons).

Nobody is even arguing don't model like that.
I would just measure as if the model was level for scoring/shooting, i.e. without advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've never acquired a flyer since I've never liked the Tau flyers, but can't you place flyers at odd angles on a flying base like GW shows off in the Codex: Tau Empire?


You will notice the Razorshark angled slightly up by GW to give it a better firing arc with its under-tail turret.

When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I'm not the one who's trying to base his argument on a picture. Pictures and fluff do not change the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
I'm not the one who's trying to base his argument on a picture. Pictures and fluff do not change the rules.

I used it as an example of one of Games Workshop's assembled miniatures, which should be a good reference, then asked if anyone could confirm if the model could be assembled like this without modification by placing it on the stand differently. If you have a rule that you can post, it would be more helpful than claiming "Forge a Narrative".

I am not making an argument, I am asking a question.

No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

To get it to pitch back also requires precarious balancing. It would be ok for a photo, but you couldn't really move the model around and play a game like that.

The pictures in the codex are just pictures. They have no bearing on the rules whatsoever. They're composed to provide a dramatic illustration, not provide any sort of example for the rules unless they're explicitly noted as such.

 Ghaz wrote:
The pictures in the codex are just pictures. They have no bearing on the rules whatsoever. They're composed to provide a dramatic illustration, not provide any sort of example for the rules unless they're explicitly noted as such.

And yet we have no rules dictating how a citadel model should be assembled for it to be legal in the game. I had not built a Razorshark so I asked if it was in a normal configuration, going about attacking my question by saying it doesn't follow the rules and "forge the narrative" is unhelpful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

To get it to pitch back also requires precarious balancing. It would be ok for a photo, but you couldn't really move the model around and play a game like that.

Ya, I assumed that from how you explained the other position. The guys who take care of the models must have been giving the photographer the evil eye while he had the model balanced like that.

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The pictures in the codex are just pictures. They have no bearing on the rules whatsoever. They're composed to provide a dramatic illustration, not provide any sort of example for the rules unless they're explicitly noted as such.

And yet we have no rules dictating how a citadel model should be assembled for it to be legal in the game. I had not built a Razorshark so I asked if it was in a normal configuration, going about attacking my question by saying it doesn't follow the rules and "forge the narrative" is unhelpful.

Yes and no, i'd say there's a bit of wrong and a bit of right here.
The "fluff Pictures", as in the one you supplied, have no bearing on the assembly of the model as no rules tell you they do.

The Pictures found in the "Warriors of the Greater Good section", however, do have basis in the rules.

Here's the RaW of it: (Page 94)

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
[...] while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Warriors of the Greater Good section.

For all of our own entertainment though, pages 82 and 86 are very clear on how the model should be assembled

By this RaW, page 90 should also be valid...

But i would say the assembly instructions for the model should leave no second guessing...

As a Necron player I´ll never have that problem myself - my fliers can´t hover.

But for my opponents... honestly, if you have a flier and you hover above an objective I don´t care if your base is 4" or 15" high... you score.

May not be what is RAW, but it´s the way I propose to my opponents, because I think that´s what is intended.

Gottloser wrote:
As a Necron player I´ll never have that problem myself - my fliers can´t hover.

But for my opponents... honestly, if you have a flier and you hover above an objective I don´t care if your base is 4" or 15" high... you score.

May not be what is RAW, but it´s the way I propose to my opponents, because I think that´s what is intended.

This. HIWPI, and most people I've played with as well, the objective marker extends upwards ad infinitum, if you're within 3" of it horizontally, you've got it. The way I see it, an objective marker shows an area of the battlefield that is important, and the 3" just determines if you're close enough to control it, but whether that's boots on the ground or controlling the airspace is irrelevant. But that's just HIWPI.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Gottloser wrote:
As a Necron player I´ll never have that problem myself - my fliers can´t hover.

But for my opponents... honestly, if you have a flier and you hover above an objective I don´t care if your base is 4" or 15" high... you score.

May not be what is RAW, but it´s the way I propose to my opponents, because I think that´s what is intended.

This. HIWPI, and most people I've played with as well, the objective marker extends upwards ad infinitum, if you're within 3" of it horizontally, you've got it. The way I see it, an objective marker shows an area of the battlefield that is important, and the 3" just determines if you're close enough to control it, but whether that's boots on the ground or controlling the airspace is irrelevant. But that's just HIWPI.

This works for flyers, but my issue is with consistency and would you allow a unit on top of a 2 or 3 story ruin control an objective on the bottom of the ruin? The unit may be within 3 inches horizontally but 6+ inches away vertically. I think the best HIWPI is when placing objectives to place one on a hill or upper level of ruins so your flyer could possibly score it later on.