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.

So this term gets thrown out there a lot on the forums. I totally agree that it's in extremely poor taste, but I recently got asked where in the rules it says that you can't pose them for advantage. I tried looking but couldn't find anything. So can anyone enlighten me as to whether or not there is actually a rule against this? I'm not talking about base size either, because I know there is a rule for that on page 3.

I would think that it depends on what the specific instance was. This edition use true line of sight so often a perceived advantage is also a disadvantage. For instance modelling your wraithlord to be in a crawling postion so it can take advantage of cover also means that he can't see over something that he normally could.
In a general sense it would be taking a standard model and changing it to protect some weakness or enhance a strength. The best instance of this would be lengthening a gun barrel on a vehicle so that it has increased range without putting it in increased danger. At best this is poor sportmanship at worst some people would say that you would be cheating for doing this. If you make a habit of it then others will simply not play with you anymore.
So while there is no hard and fast rule (aside from WYSIWYG) that I can find in the BRB there are social implications.

The rules don't cover modelling at all, other than the base size issue. Some players draw the assumption from that that the rules are written with stock-standard miniatures in mind, and that conversions are technically not allowed.

Anything beyond that, it's really down to the individual players.

Technically the rulebook says nothing about it.

I can repose a model.

I can also put all my guardsmen on prone position and then add little periscopes to their helmets so they can draw line of sight by adding a some tiny googley eyes to the top ends of these periscopes. RAW you can't say gak.

Yeah but I can not play you, have fun~!

As much time as my IG spend going to ground, they might as well be modeled that way...

Rephistorch wrote:So this term gets thrown out there a lot on the forums. I totally agree that it's in extremely poor taste, but I recently got asked where in the rules it says that you can't pose them for advantage. I tried looking but couldn't find anything. So can anyone enlighten me as to whether or not there is actually a rule against this? I'm not talking about base size either, because I know there is a rule for that on page 3.

A more pertinent issue....

Keep in mind that only in a few select cases does anybody have to show a rule that disallows a certain thing.

98% of the time one has to show a rule that actually ALLOWS for a certain action to be taken. It is simply the way that the rules are written as opposed to most laws (in a legal sense).


The game is played with Citadel miniatures (page 3) and in order to change those, one has to show a rule allowing such an action. One does not have to show a rule disallowing it, because that is not the way the rules are written.

Note that this is very much a RAW stance as it prohibits any kind of conversions (without your opponents consent). This might seem an overly harsh interpretation but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

i think in such a case you just gotta ask your opponent first if you want to be fair. I don't see how lying some guardsmen down would help them. if they can't be seen(due to cover) then how can they see.

juraigamer wrote:Technically the rulebook says nothing about it.

I can repose a model.

I can also put all my guardsmen on prone position and then add little periscopes to their helmets so they can draw line of sight by adding a some tiny googley eyes to the top ends of these periscopes. RAW you can't say gak.

RAW says that you use citadel miniatures. It doesn't allow citadel miniatures with added little periscopes.

The real question is, are citadel miniatures that have not been assembled in accordance with the instructions supplied suitable for play? The rule book just says that they have to be glued to their bases.

Scott-S6 wrote:

RAW says that you use citadel miniatures. It doesn't allow citadel miniatures with added little periscopes.

That's true, but I would be making the periscopes from parts of the sprue or using some of those bits no one really uses to "count as" a helmet addition.

You want to quote part of the rules that lets you do this "counts as" helmet addition?

To the people who wonder what advantage you gain from modeling all prone: you must play shooty armies. Consider Genestealers that were all modeled crab-walking, so you couldn't see them behind a hill. They don't suffer at all, and they live loner to get into CC.

juraigamer has stolen the TFG (and troll) crown. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can, so HA HA HA". K, I'll play somebody else so ha ha ha. Hope you had fun spending all that time converting models for an advantage in a game that nobody will now play with you. Take your ball and go home.

However, a tournament might be a different case, though, where you're slated to play a certain player. Does anyone have experience with any tournament rules that cover modeling for advantage?

Our hobby has two parts; miniatures and game rules. You can focus completely on either one, but don't expect the guys who do both to like it. I personally am rushing to get my army painted. No because it helps them rules-wise, but because it's an integral part of the hobby. Eventually, someone who plops down an all-grey counts-as half-assembled army for a year straight without working on it will get frowned upon as much as someone who models for advantage.

Also: The periscope addition wouldn't matter, you check LOS from their eyes. There are no rules for telescopes or gear.

ElCheezus wrote:

Also: The periscope addition wouldn't matter, you check LOS from their eyes. There are no rules for telescopes or gear.

Which I've always though kind of odd, as if you model the mini holding pair of binoculars like he's looking through it or aiming a missile launcher, they have no LOS. (we won't get into minis like flamers that don't have eyes or things that have eyes in strange places)

BaronIveagh wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Also: The periscope addition wouldn't matter, you check LOS from their eyes. There are no rules for telescopes or gear.

Which I've always though kind of odd, as if you model the mini holding pair of binoculars like he's looking through it or aiming a missile launcher, they have no LOS. (we won't get into minis like flamers that don't have eyes or things that have eyes in strange places)

So all you gotta do is paint eyes on the periscopes top or add eyes some other way. Nothing states what "Eyes" actually have to be after all.

Hell RAW most units in 40k can't shoot at all.

Also please note, the idea for the guardsmen laying down on their bases with periscope helmets is just a theory example. The only guard army I would make would be a tallarn force, standing up.

I've always interpreted 'their eyes' as meaning 'their main visual point of view'. I am fully aware that my interpretation has nothing to do with RAW

juraigamer wrote:Nothing states what "Eyes" actually have to be after all.

We all know what eyes are.

If you want to play that game then nothing states what the markings on a "standard six-sided dice" are (my dice have 6's on all the sides).

I Will model a vindicator with 20 prolonged demolisher cannons, 72 inches long, so i can measure the range from th mouth of the weaponn and wow, my vindicator has 96 range!!! wow... going get a pipe....

juraigamer wrote:Technically the rulebook says nothing about it.

The closest it comes is the quote on the bottom of page 17.

"The reward for treachery is retribution."

time wizard wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Technically the rulebook says nothing about it.

The closest it comes is the quote on the bottom of page 17.

"The reward for treachery is retribution."

It's in the rulebook. And it fits. I'd roll with that as the rule.

The biggest reason to not "model for advantage" is tournement/ league play. Its quite possible that you will find local people willing to play pickup games against an unusual army.

Its very unlikely that a TO will let a heavily posed army win any event.

Most experienced TOs will have a blanket rule fo disallowing unfair or unsportmanlike behaviour. This will of course be determined by the TO, and is usually broad enough to cover something like the Vindi with the extended barrel. If some of the other players in the event complain (and yes there will likely be complaints if a unit of crab crawling genestealers wipes out a few units) then that will usually be enough for the TO to disallow the army.

So it all comes down to where you want to play....and if you dont mind having to keep finding new opponents every week to face your 20" long barrelled vindis.



Sliggoth

Sure the rulebook doesnt say you cant convert models for your advantage, it doesnt also say that i can throw a salmon on my opponents army, and declare that i have just won the game, becuase all his models are either broken, still flying through the air, or just plain crushed.

punkow wrote:I Will model a vindicator with 20 prolonged demolisher cannons, 72 inches long, so i can measure the range from th mouth of the weaponn and wow, my vindicator has 96 range!!! wow... going get a pipe....

Can you imagine trying to transport that?

As it stands, customizing your models in different poses should be fine but once you start crossing a certain threshold it would be considered bad manner.

But there is nothing said about buying certain models for an advantage, such as buying crouching tau fire warriors so they can see under a devil fish.

It also does not describe how to roll dice, or what those might be.

Models can be glued together however the modeler deems fit.

TOs and Opponents then get to determine if that is fair.

If you wait to be a goon for one stage, you must--must--accept people being "goons" when looking at and agreeing to play/not play against them.

I think it really falls on your determinations of good sportsmanship. The rules are designed to create a fair game with the models assembled the way they were apparently meant to be. Modeling your genestealers crawling on the ground in order to make it easier to claim cover saves is just a really, really obnoxious thing to do. In doing so, you invite a mindset of winning games over showing the other player respect and giving them a fair shake. Nonsense like that ruins everybody's fun.

The gray areas come where the modeling clearly confers an advantage, but not one that is obviously ridiculous, like the aforementioned 72" vindicator barrel. Consider, for example, the Baal-Pattern Predator with Flamestorm Cannon--it's a template weapon that you can't use pointing forward, because to do so would place a friendly model (in this case, the tank itself) under the template. In order to fire it, you have to turn it and expose your side armor. Would anyone be okay with a player modeling a longer barrel in order to fire the gun forwards?

MekanobSamael wrote:
Consider, for example, the Baal-Pattern Predator with Flamestorm Cannon--it's a template weapon that you can't use pointing forward, because to do so would place a friendly model (in this case, the tank itself) under the template. In order to fire it, you have to turn it and expose your side armor. Would anyone be okay with a player modeling a longer barrel in order to fire the gun forwards?

The recent FAQ fixed that however, so that example doesn't matter atm.

juraigamer wrote:The recent FAQ fixed that however, so that example doesn't matter atm.

Can't seem to find it. Any chance you could link me?

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.pdf

Thanks!

The shrine is a pita to navigate too until it's at the top of your browser address bar

Actually it doesn't address the issue of the vehicle's own weaonry. It specifically states the embarked unit's weapon. So those people who argue that the old Immolators can't fire because the template hits it's own hull still have that available.