modelling for advantage???

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.

**Galador**

Ok. everyone knows what the old Dark Eldar Raider looks like, but just in case you dont....

My question is this....

If I decided to take the two side platforms off, or to cut them and stand them up on the sides to cover the engine, would this be considered modeling for advantage??? The only reason I am thinking of doing this is the comparison between the size of the old Raider and the new one.

For those that dont know what the new one looks like....

Would this be fair or not???

**Mannahnin**

I don't understand the reason. You want to cut them off so the size matches the new one more closely?

I think if you cut them off to reduce the model's footprint people are likely to see that as modeling for advantage.

**Galador**

Yes, I was thinking of shrinking the old ones to match the size of the new models. Basically, if you never put the side plates on the old one, they are almost as wide as the new Raiders. With the side plates, they are almost 2" wider, and that's if you don't add any of the blades or extra bits that attach to the hull.

**Ailaros**

I thought those little side things didn't matter anyways on the old model.

Plus, GW was the idiot who made gaming rules dependent on artwork. If any one gives you crap, blame GW and call the waaahmbulance for them.

**Galador**

I have always counted the side parts as hull, but if its listed somewhere by GW that they aren't part of the hull, can you point me to it?? If I have an official ruling on it then I dont need to worry about changing it

**yakface**

Galador wrote:I have always counted the side parts as hull, but if its listed somewhere by GW that they aren't part of the hull, can you point me to it?? If I have an official ruling on it then I dont need to worry about changing it

No, GW hasn't ruled on that. There's no reason (I can tell) to consider those side platforms to be a 'decorative element' as described in the rules, but that's a very broad term which is why people often argue about exactly what it means.

The real question is: Why do you want to do this?

If you're doing it to try to make the model look cooler (and it does) then its unlikely that people will care.

If you're doing it to try to reduce the 'footprint' of the model allowing you to pull crazy rules shenanigans with it, then some people will probably be bothered by it and care.

And if the answer is really the latter, then you have to look at yourself in the mirror and ask: 'why am I taking this game so seriously that I'm whittling down my models to get an advantage over other players?'

Ultimately you're the only one that knows the true meaning behind your actions, but it is safe to say that your opponents can quickly tell when someone has modeled for advantage because they always take advantage of the little loophole they've created.

Whereas someone who has just converted their models to look cool will, for example, tell their opponent at the beginning of the game something like: "hey I removed the side platforms here because I hate the way they looked, so if any blast markers just barely scatter off my Raider to the side we'll play that they count as being over the hull anyway, okay?"

So again, why do you want to do this? If its to gain an advantage in the game then you are modeling for an advantage. If it is just because you want to make the model look cooler then you're not modeling for an advantage and if anyone has a problem with it, just play it like they were there and nobody should care.

**Galador**

Honestly, I am kinda doing it for both reasons. They look retardedly huge and blocky compared to the new sleek Raiders that we have now, and I wanna streamline them abit, so thats the modeling side of it.

Also, it just seems stupid that one Raid I have is 2" wide and the other one is up to 5" wide, depending on what I modeled on it. Just seems like if they are the exact same thing, why the large size difference. I know the real world answer to that is because its a 13 year difference between modeling, but it just seems like I should have a standard size, ya know???

I know that in a tourney, it will be up tothe organizer, but I think I will talk to my local gamers and make the decision based on what they think of it. Basically, if the majority of people I play against agree about they should be the same size, then I will change them. If not, then I will leave them the same. They haven't made me any less killy, the look of it is really what bothers me.

**augustus5**

I could see some people whining about it, and ironically it would probably be the same people who try to say that the wings on their vendetta don't count as part of the hull for LOS purposes.

**yakface**

Galador wrote:Honestly, I am kinda doing it for both reasons. They look retardedly huge and blocky compared to the new sleek Raiders that we have now, and I wanna streamline them abit, so thats the modeling side of it.

Also, it just seems stupid that one Raid I have is 2" wide and the other one is up to 5" wide, depending on what I modeled on it. Just seems like if they are the exact same thing, why the large size difference. I know the real world answer to that is because its a 13 year difference between modeling, but it just seems like I should have a standard size, ya know???

I know that in a tourney, it will be up tothe organizer, but I think I will talk to my local gamers and make the decision based on what they think of it. Basically, if the majority of people I play against agree about they should be the same size, then I will change them. If not, then I will leave them the same. They haven't made me any less killy, the look of it is really what bothers me.

So ask yourself: If the roles were reversed...that the new Raiders were significantly wider than the older models, would you now be considering ways to alter your Raiders to make them wider?

If the answer is no, then again I think you need to take a hard look in the mirror and just say: Okay, my old models are wider than the new ones and this makes them a bit more vulnerable to blasts and doesn't allow me to pack them in together quite so tightly, but those are the models I have so I'll deal with it. Ultimately this is just a game of toy soldiers and if I lose one or two games because my Raiders are wider then the current ones, then so be it.

**Galador**

yakface wrote:So ask yourself: If the roles were reversed...that the new Raiders were significantly wider than the older models, would you now be considering ways to alter your Raiders to make them wider?

If the answer is no, then again I think you need to take a hard look in the mirror and just say: Okay, my old models are wider than the new ones and this makes them a bit more vulnerable to blasts and doesn't allow me to pack them in together quite so tightly, but those are the models I have so I'll deal with it. Ultimately this is just a game of toy soldiers and if I lose one or two games because my Raiders are wider then the current ones, then so be it.

This is a good point, yakface, and I have to agree with you there, but I can't honestly answer if I would try to make them wider or not, but I feel that I would cause I feel that once again, it would handicap the model if it wasn't as big. I'll probably just leave them the way they are and just replace them with new Raiders as I get more of them.

I try to see the rules from both sides of the table, but as far as this one goes, I really just feel that the models would look alot cooler if they didnt have the side plates on them. I can see how it might be considered cheating, which is why its here in YMDC. Thanks for the insight, yakface.

**y0disisray**

Yeah I don't honestly believe you will lose a game because of those side steps. Just play it like golf, play it as it lies.

**Orock**

Just checking, am I the only one who likes the look of the OLD one better??

Dont get me wrong, i like all the extra bits from the 2nd, but it says fantasy naval battle to me, not 40k. It looks like a model you would set in water, and the gunner has a harpoon or somesuch. The first one looked like a sleak jet engine with little else attached. BUT they were notoriously easy to break on transport.

**Galador**

I think I have found the solution to my dilemma...

Talked to a fellow gamer around here and we came up with this idea, let me know what you think....

I am headed to Micheal's and or Hobby Lobby tomorrow to pick up the smallest hinges I can find. I am going to slice off the steps, and glue the hinges to each piece.

That way, I can fold them up to both make my raiders roughly the same size (and of course count any embarking/disembarking from the folded up sides) but if someone has an issue with it, I can fold the steps back down and make them back into the normal sized old raider.

I feel it solves both problems, as it gives me something interesting to model, and at the same time, I can always revert to the original form if anyone has an issue with it.

So, what do all my fellow Dakkaites think???(I am especially keen to hear your thoughts, yakface!)

**Briancj**

I think this is a win-win solution, and will be something a lot of DE players with older Raiders will want to look into/know about.

Be sure and post your results in the P&M forums!

**solkan**

I'd just like to be on record that before today I had not thought anyone could propose a way of making the old model look worse.

But I hope I'm just misunderstanding the modification that the original poster is suggesting.

**Aldarionn**

I have no problem with people playing with older models, regardless of their size/shape in relation to the newer variants. That said, I feel that if you are going to use an older model, you have to use it stock, and take the good with the bad. If you want to field old Terminators with the 25mm bases, that's fine, but blasts will often catch more of your models than the ones that use 40mm bases. On the other hand, I have no problem with someone fielding an old Carnifex. The model is much smaller than the current Carnifex making it easier to get cover, but it's a legal GW model so by all means, use it!

The old Raiders have a larger footprint. If you want to use those old models, deal with the larger footprint. Don't try to adjust it to be more like the new models. If you want the benefit of the new model, buy the new model, or suck it up and use the old one the way it is.

**Galador**

I think my intentions may have come off a bit wrong with this thread.....

I like my old raiders, and the size doesn't matter to me, after all, I have been playing them like that for a long time!!! The only thing that bothers me is the size difference. I am a bit OC about it I guess.

I just want my stuff to look roughly the same, and I can see the points about if I wanna play with the old ones, don't complain about it, and also that it might make it look worse.

1)if it makes it look worse, I will be reverting it back to original form!!!
2) I wasn't trying to complain about the size, it has never bothered me, just the size difference, sorry if it came off the wrong way. Honestly, if I had the spare bits, I would put the side steps on the new Raiders to even them out if I thought it would look good!!

@briancj - If it looks good, I will make a P&M thread about it.

**whitedragon**

I think it will look great, and help unify the aesthetics between the new and old range. Go for it!

**Billinator**

@Galador
I get what you meant (well, mean), and i'm with you on that.
- If the new model (official, mind you) has a smaller hull, you shouldn't be penalized for using older models, really.

OTOH, you shouldn't be modelling models to your advantage. But i get that's not your point (at all).

But frankly, idk about that one. It'd seem pretty stupid, if you weren't allowed to downscale the model to match the size of the new ones. I wouldn't consider that "illegal".
But thats just me

**Galador**

@Billinator
Thats why im going to put the hinges on the wings, that way if someone has an issue with it, I can just fold them down and it will be the original size.

Besides, if I had wanted to model for advantage, I never would have put the wings on when I put them together 10 years ago lol

**yakface**

Galador wrote:@Billinator
Thats why im going to put the hinges on the wings, that way if someone has an issue with it, I can just fold them down and it will be the original size.

Besides, if I had wanted to model for advantage, I never would have put the wings on when I put them together 10 years ago lol

I think you may have misunderstood my original point. I'm all for you converting your models if you think it will make them look better. And if that conversion happens to piss off some players because they think you're modeling for advantage when you're really not, then screw 'em.

My real point was: It always becomes apparent when someone has modeled for advantage because they *always* take advantage of what they have created.

For example, there's obviously nothing wrong with using the old Trukk models, but with some players you can just 'tell' right off the bat what's up because they instantly put their old small-ass trucks right behind their (new version) Killa Kans and then immediately tell you there's no way you can draw line of sight to them.

Whereas when I play with my old Trukks, if I were to put them behind my Killa Kans I voluntarily tell my opponent right when I deploy the Trukk that they can most definitely see my Trukk behind my Kans even if it doesn't appear that way based on the 'true' LOS...because I understand that if I were using the newer Trukks it wouldn't even be a question.

So that's the point. If your intentions are truly just to improve the look of the model then do it full bore and just make sure to 'play friendly' and give a bit of leeway to your opponent when dealing with situations that would occur if the side planks were there.

**Sir Pseudonymous**

Isn't there kind of a double standard in what you're suggesting? If an old model would give the user an unfair advantage on account of being able to take advantage of BLoS or a smaller footprint or what have you, then they should treat it as conceptually being the same size as the new ones for the sake of fairness, but if they have an old model that has the exact opposite problem, then they should just suck it up or buy a new model?

I don't see the issue in converting an old model to be the same size as the new (something people suggested for the old trukks, in the form of bulking them up with plasticard), even if it means hacking the sides off.

**morgendonner**

I can't even really think of many scenarios where somebody has LOS to that footpost and not to some other element of the vehicle. I really don't think you'd gain much from it.

If you want to do it purely for aesthetics, I wouldn't say anything if you plopped it on a table across for me and I don't think most people would in this situation.

**yakface**

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Isn't there kind of a double standard in what you're suggesting? If an old model would give the user an unfair advantage on account of being able to take advantage of BLoS or a smaller footprint or what have you, then they should treat it as conceptually being the same size as the new ones for the sake of fairness, but if they have an old model that has the exact opposite problem, then they should just suck it up or buy a new model?

I don't see the issue in converting an old model to be the same size as the new (something people suggested for the old trukks, in the form of bulking them up with plasticard), even if it means hacking the sides off.

Again, my point is that modeling for an advantage is more of a mindset then something that 'accidentally' pisses off your opponent.

To go back to my previous example, I mentioned someone using the older Trukk models in their army and then trying to hide them behind the 'new' Kan/Dread models. If someone has a fully 'old' Ork army then it obviously isn't going to piss anyone off if he tries to hide his Trukks behind a low hill or his Kans, because they are what they are.

But when a player is using ALL new Ork vehicle models *except* for the Trukks and then clearly attempts to abuse this situation by hiding the Trukks behind the other bigger vehicles then everyone instantly knows this is a situation where someone is using modeling to gain an advantage.

In both situations the player is using a legal model, and in both situations he's playing with them using the same tactics (hide the Trukks behind stuff), but one is clearly a case of the player using modeling to his advantage and the other isn't.

When someone goes out of their way to use a certain model of another or converts a model a certain way specifically because doing so is giving them an advantage in the game, then this is something that (rightly so) will piss many people off.

If you are converting or using your old models just because you like the way they look, then you should never be worried that people may think you're using modeling to your advantage because you know you're not. And the way you prove it is to be a great sportsman and give a little leeway to your opponent to prove that your models/conversions are not done to gain an advantage. If you do this, you will never, ever, ever have a problem with this issue.

**Galador**

Ok, I have finally gotten around to making this, and hope that some of you like it, and if anyone wants, I will post a how to in the P & M forums!!! Hope you enjoy (and please ignore the horrid paint job!! I did this on an old Raider that hasn't been repainted yet!!)

**solkan**

I think that looks terrible. But, it appears to have the redeeming factor that it's probably easier to transport a fleet of vehicles.

**Briancj**

The design fulfills the need and plan. Excellent execution.

**Exergy**

I actually think it looks really really cool with the planks down at some angle between 45 and 60 degrees instead of the original 90. I think I am going to convert one ASAP to have its planks at 60 degrees.

It might make the model 10% narrower.

If someone is going to complain about 10% I am not really interested in playing them.

**Galador**

Also, I would like everyone to remember this is still a WIP, as I haven't put the whole thing back together or adjusted the sideplanks to be in perfect unison. I am just slow with getting it converted cause I picked up a bunch of new models (you can see some of them in the pics) and have been busy assembling them and getting them painted.....

I think I am a bit too much of a DE freak cause I just can't seem to stop getting more and more of them!!lol(as my pts value in my sig attests to, and that is without the newest models I have picked up!!!)

I have about 5 projects going right now, including the Venom I just made from another of my old Raiders, so please, feel free to have a look at that thread and tell me what you think!!!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/349111.page#2491474

**DarthSpader**

Nice conversion. I prefer the new raider myself and all my old ones now exist as venoms, but all in all well done on the conversion.