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.

READ DESCRIPTION BEFORE VOTING AND VOTE HOW YOU WOULD ACT NOT NECESSARILY RAW

I just put together a broadside battlesuit and while I like the pose, it occurred to me after the fact that people could consider this modeling for advantage as the gun sticks out a good 3 inches from the base, which could mean the difference between me hitting you & you being unable to hit me. My other suit is similarly modeled but the gun is drawn across his chest rather than aimed outward.

Onto the poll:
Would you have any problems with me fielding this model in a tournament?

A.) Yes - Yes I have a problem and would request you not field the model &/or would dock you sportsmanship

B.) No - I would have no qualms with you fielding the model

C.) Other - Please describe your reason, just choosing this will not help me

Edit: forgot the picture >.<

Since it's not a vehicle (a least it doesn't look like one) you measure base to base not weapon to base so there shouldn't be any problems.

I guess it would qualify as a cheat if..

1. You measured the shot and LOS from the gun barrel..

And then said"If you can't see my body you cant shoot me".

2.Ie Range to hit you is based on your base...err...

Agreed. Since it's not a vehicle, all ranges are from the base and los is from the head, so you can model its arms however you want.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Since it's not a vehicle (a least it doesn't look like one) you measure base to base not weapon to base so there shouldn't be any problems.

Ah right, thanks for that, I always think it's from weapon tip on everything. (Damn flamers and placing the template on the tip lol) issue resolved.

this is interesting - the arm might block a guy, but hey, isn't a hq gonna protect it's troops?

it looks fine, and it's not MFA pe-se, so no.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Since it's not a vehicle (a least it doesn't look like one) you measure base to base not weapon to base so there shouldn't be any problems.

Ah right, thanks for that, I always think it's from weapon tip on everything. (Damn flamers and placing the template on the tip lol) issue resolved.

Uh, yeah man, flamers are similiar as any other weapon where non vehicle models are concerned, you place the narrow end of the template in contact with the base of the firing model.

Krak_kirby wrote:
Uh, yeah man, flamers are similiar as any other weapon where non vehicle models are concerned, you place the narrow end of the template in contact with the base of the firing model.

So they do well if you gentlemen will excuse me, I have an IG player to take issue with. . .

I would not have an issue with it, but it does seem like it is a bt much from a physics perspective...

I voted for A. Here is why... The gun sticks out very far. You could have your squads stand behind it and try and claim cover since it blocks part of their torso. To me it looks like you are trying to gain cover by modeling it that way.

Oh yeah, and it looks terrible.

Dracos wrote:
Oh yeah, and it looks terrible.

Thank you Dracos, because that was so helpful to an issue that had already been solved. What would I ever do without knowing you disapprove of my model, oh woe is me I think I'll just melt it down for scrap. . .

/melodrama

Seriously though if you're looking to flame me over my modeling ability (which I admit is terrible, I have no artistic ability) just stop, this is YMDC not P&M.

That was not a flame of your modeling ability, I just think it looks bad. Not that the job is poor, but the design and achieved effect is. The gun is way to big to be mounted like that.

*shrug*

I think it's wrong.
That just added 3 inches to it's range

ncaa_40k wrote:I think it's wrong.
That just added 3 inches to it's range

Didn't read the thread, eh?

Is it just the angle of the picture or does he have no lower leg?

ncaa_40k wrote:That just added 3 inches to it's range

No, it didn't. As was already pointed out, range is measured from the model's base, not the tip of the weapon.

You could model the weapon a mile long, and it would still have no effect on measuring range from the model.

For models on bases. Vehicles are different.

id play it is as fine but If im shooting through that thing to hit someone no way in hell are you getting cover

Even if you did measure from the tip of the gun it would make much difference with this particular weapon as it has a range that rarely requires a range check outside of Appoc.

your range would go from 72" to 75". not a huge gain.


on a side note: how do you keep him from falling over?

Lead wights in the bottom. Also I would never attempt to claim cover from it, and here is the intended view point:

Others have probably said this, but just to be sure: You measure range from the base of all models that are not vehicles, so it does nothing. Besides, adding a few inches to a 72" gun is hardly game-breaking

as stated above, the range to and from the model is to the base so feel free to model it without most people claiming you're getting an advantage. that being said... i simply don't like the look. the regular unmodified railguns don't look nice on the hands (the FW ones are sculpted differently). i'd shorten them a tad simply to make the pose look better.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:
Uh, yeah man, flamers are similiar as any other weapon where non vehicle models are concerned, you place the narrow end of the template in contact with the base of the firing model.

So they do well if you gentlemen will excuse me, I have an IG player to take issue with. . .

its pretty common for people to do that actually, dont know what model you are talking about but none of my IG flamers have the tips more than a mm or two away from the edge of the base anyway.

also the template doesn't have to be at a 90 degree angle away from the base, like lets say your flaming out of the 12 o-clock position, you could rotate that template ll the way to 4 o-clock to finangle the angle of flame with the tip still touching the 12 o-clock of the base.

Grundz wrote:also the template doesn't have to be at a 90 degree angle away from the base, like lets say your flaming out of the 12 o-clock position, you could rotate that template ll the way to 4 o-clock to finangle the angle of flame with the tip still touching the 12 o-clock of the base.

Exactly.

To crack out the Vassals again, all the following are legal placements:

Ok, the 3rd isn't technically legal, since he doesn't have LoS to any enemies behind him, but you can pivot him in the Shooting Phase so it's not an issue!

Dracos wrote:I voted for A. Here is why... The gun sticks out very far. You could have your squads stand behind it and try and claim cover since it blocks part of their torso. To me it looks like you are trying to gain cover by modeling it that way.

Oh yeah, and it looks terrible.

You realize of course that the gun will be the same distance out whether it is facing forward or to the side, and that the model facing does not matter when checking for LOS and range, so the only time you could say a broadside is never MFA is if the guns are pointed straight up in the air.

*Edit*
Not to imply anyone SHOULD get cover from a broadsides gun, mind you, just illustrating a point.

If someone had an issue with that, they would have to have issue with every Fire Warrior model as well. Their guns stick way out from the base as well. Not changing the game in any way though.

Gwar! wrote:GWAR!

Don't Infantry not have 90/180/whatever degree LOS arcs since like 2nd edition?

Grundz wrote:

Gwar! wrote:GWAR!

Don't Infantry not have 90/180/whatever degree LOS arcs since like 2nd edition?

Since you're allowed to pivot infantry in the shooting phase anyway, their LoS arc for shooting is pointless.

Grundz wrote:

Gwar! wrote:GWAR!

Don't Infantry not have 90/180/whatever degree LOS arcs since like 2nd edition?

No, they do not.

However, they can pivot in the Shooting phase, so it doesn't matter.

Grundz wrote:

Gwar! wrote:GWAR!

Don't Infantry not have 90/180/whatever degree LOS arcs since like 2nd edition?

To elaborate a little: Infantry don't have a defined fire arc. We're simply told to draw LOS from their eyes, and to turn them to face their target in the shooting phase. So models technically can't shoot behind them. Just how far around they can see (assuming a situation where they can not be turned to face) is not defined in the rules.