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.

In the past, I've had several models, on flying bases, break at the tip (Deffcopters, Necron Bikes, etc,). So when I built my Stormravens, I cut out the plus section on the bottom to allow the new Flying stem to fit very snug and not fall off as easy. It's almost an inch, but is it modeling for advantage?


Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, ‘Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

any advantage you gain in reducing the height, you lose in weapon LOS, i would allow it.

it all depends on your opponent, tbh i don't think many people would even notice.

That should be fine. You could even make the case that you modeled it for coolness. Afterall, when your models stay on the stand and don't break, I think that is pretty cool.

-cgmckenzie

one inch is fine.

removing the entire stand, not okay

I still can't think of any rules that disallow modelling for advantage.

I wouldn't have any problem with it. That being said I'm not sure about the Storm Raven but to bust the stand off my Vendetta you would probably have to drop it out a 3rd story window.

The cross shaped "Flyer" stands are much more resilient than the narrow "Skimmer" peg stands, and even those I noticed are being phased out (at least for DE) in favor of the slightly more sturdy looking "ball and socket" "Skimmer" stands.

I still can't think of any rules that disallow modelling for advantage.

I can, if it is in tournament play.

There is a line drawn between "artistic license" and Modeling for Advantage.

A perfect example is the kneeling sniper wraith lord.

This is a MfA so that it can take advantage of cover and TLOS because it is lower to the ground.

It really comes down to causal and tournament play. Casual play you could get away with it.

But once you are in a tournament, then it is a case by case basis.

You bought the model for its abilities AND limitations. Reducing the stem size an inch so you can try to take advantage of cover and TLOS, is Modeling for Advantage.

The results could be removal of the model or possible disqualification.

In the past, I've had several models, on flying bases, break at the tip (Deffcopters, Necron Bikes, etc,). So when I built my Stormravens, I cut out the plus section on the bottom to allow the new Flying stem to fit very snug and not fall off as easy. It's almost an inch, but is it modeling for advantage?

In this case because of the broken stem, and yes I have seen this happened before I think that it would be okay in most games. I would game with you due to the situation in a tournament game if the explanation was given. Most people would.

However when you are dealing with the hardcore players then you might have problems with it.

To this day I have no freaking idea why GW went with a single stem instead with a dual stem base.

This kind of minor mod for durability, as with the even worse skimmer pegs, should not be a problem for most folks. I've never seen anyone object to a skimmer peg being removed; although that only changes the height by about a centimeter, if that.

There is technically no rule against modeling for advantage, in general, although in the specific case of bases it's technically disallowed because we're told to use the model the base is provided with; and modifying that base to a significant degree is usually seen to be making it no longer "the base it was provided with".

Also, many tournaments specifically institute a rule against modeling for advantage. The most common variation is that if you have modified in such a way as to change its size/shape/height, you're supposed to play it as being the same as the stock model in any situation where the modification is giving you an advantage.

Well thanks.

If there is a question about my Ravens being in cover, I say they are in the open. When it's time for me to shoot, I use TLOS.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I still can't think of any rules that disallow modelling for advantage.

Modelling for advantage has never really been a rules issue so much as an issue of whether or not anyone will actually play with you.


While it generally gets pointed out in these discussions that there are no rules allowing you to alter your models, it's a minor argument at best. It's widely accepted that people do modify their models... it's simply up to the players themselves to police what is acceptable and what isn't, since the rules just don't go there.