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.

At what point does modelling break the rules? This obviously isn't a new topic of concern I'm sure, but I can't remember dealing with something like this in the many years of GT/RT tourney play I have been involved with and I am curious what the current pulse of the dakka community is on the topic.

I recently played in a GT my friend was running and I ran against a GK player that had three rifledreads. Now I have four vanilla rifledreads myself, two built with the forgeworld conversion and two built with the quad gun from the aegis defence line box set. This guy used the quad gun modification but placed them on the top edge of his dreads to gain enough gun height to clear the razorbacks he hid behind. There was also some height added to the bases with terrain and/or globs of sand or greenstuff. The army was painted nicely, but it smacked of modelling to gain an advantage.

Now I have seen my share of competitive tourney gamers/rules lawyers/so on and so forth, but this just seemed to go over the top. I love to see conversions just as much as the next guy, in fact, modelling is a close second to actual playing on my list of fun. This seemed to fall into the category of what I call tourney douchebaggery. Am I off base or is this a rules violation?

Without pics I'd say it's a TOs call.
Also depends on, well, about a million other things.

It was subtle for sure, but the weapons were obviously raised on the model to clear the razor. My dreads are standard, and the bottom gun of the twin-linked auto does not clear the razors hull. These were modelled to clear the hull, sort of like if the dread were shrugging his shoulders and his shoulder joint dislocated. Coupled with the thickening of the bases, it was over the top for sure.

There was a thread on this matter some time back. I believe the end result is still: to talk to your TO and show him a dread with FW arms and asks for his opinion.

I think a normal TO should do one of the following:
1- Not letting him shooting those as twin-linked at all same-ground-level units.
2- Give all units he shoots at cover save.

I am all for creative conversions, but dreads built to perfectly fit over a vehicle for shooting? No bueno. A good TO should have been granting you cover saves from the dread, as it is clearly modelling for advantage.

Not to mention can't you only shoot the dreadnought's body, weapons don't count? So whether he liked his dislocated conversion, or was cheating, the advantages gained by this are way too many.

rynnsguard wrote:It was subtle for sure. . .it was over the top for sure.

It sort of depends on which of those is more true.

While there are obvious advantages in what you describe, it mostly comes down to:
1: If it looks good.
2: Why it was done.


1 is relatively simple, and you seemed to think it was.
2 is strange. Almost no one will say "Yes, I did that simply to abuse this rule" when called on doing just that - unless they already got TO permission. It could be something as straight-forward as making the army look 'just right' on a display board, inspiration from a different source, or just wanting to do something different - maybe the guy has 25 other dreads and these ones to be unique.

It is also possible the guy is a goon and needs to be brought to the TO's attention.

rynnsguard wrote:At what point does modelling break the rules? This obviously isn't a new topic of concern I'm sure, but I can't remember dealing with something like this in the many years of GT/RT tourney play I have been involved with and I am curious what the current pulse of the dakka community is on the topic.

I recently played in a GT my friend was running and I ran against a GK player that had three rifledreads. Now I have four vanilla rifledreads myself, two built with the forgeworld conversion and two built with the quad gun from the aegis defence line box set. This guy used the quad gun modification but placed them on the top edge of his dreads to gain enough gun height to clear the razorbacks he hid behind. There was also some height added to the bases with terrain and/or globs of sand or greenstuff. The army was painted nicely, but it smacked of modelling to gain an advantage.

Now I have seen my share of competitive tourney gamers/rules lawyers/so on and so forth, but this just seemed to go over the top. I love to see conversions just as much as the next guy, in fact, modelling is a close second to actual playing on my list of fun. This seemed to fall into the category of what I call tourney douchebaggery. Am I off base or is this a rules violation?

Did he actually shoot over the Razorbacks? Did you question him about it?

I've seen a couple of people convert higher arms, but NOT use them to shoot over their transports.

I agree that if they model specifically to get clear LOS over the top of a Rhino while behind it, that's objectionable. With normal height arms usually at least the bottom barrels will be blocked; maybe both if shooting at a short target, because you're suppose to actually trace LOS down the barrels, which means pointing the barrels at the target. So if it's shorter than the Rhino, that may mean trying to draw LOS through a vehicle.

kirsanth wrote:

rynnsguard wrote:It was subtle for sure. . .it was over the top for sure.

The modelling was subtle because there were no other conversions, just the guns mounted higher up on the dread hull and the base thickened. If you did not look specifically at the model or were unfamiliar with dreads, it may not stand out in a display board. The guns were clearly modelled to see over the top of a rhino/razor hull with the combination of raising the gun height and thickening of the dread base. When on the table top in deployment and during the course of the game, anyone familiar with dreads would see the gun and base height were altered.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I agree that if they model specifically to get clear LOS over the top of a Rhino while behind it, that's objectionable. With normal height arms usually at least the bottom barrels will be blocked; maybe both if shooting at a short target, because you're suppose to actually trace LOS down the barrels, which means pointing the barrels at the target. So if it's shorter than the Rhino, that may mean trying to draw LOS through a vehicle.

This was my point of claiming tourney douchebaggery as the dreads weapons were clearly over the top of the rhino/razor hull.

My rifledreads with the aegis quad gun fit nicely onto the dread platform. There is no need to raise them up above the standard mounting pin unless for aesthetics or LOS shenanigans.

It all comes down to intent, methinks.

If you do a crazy conversion just because you think it's cool, that's totally allowed.

If you do a crazy conversion just because it gives you an in-game advantage, that's not legit.


Obviously, it's hard to know what someone was thinking when they did a conversion. So, I recommend a Vulcan Mind Meld. Or, failing that, asking the TO for guidance.

I ran into a some what similar situation with my GKs while playing against my brother. The FW Dreadnought s for the GK are just short enough to almost entirely hide behind the newer Rhino chassis, while my plastic Venerables can see over the old rhino chassis and still gain cover from most any shooting. While nothing was modified as far as height goes, it was taking advantage of modeling in a way. Being my brother he congradulated me on my trickery and chucked a spare hill into my gut. I only use it against him, but it is possible to be done and legal.

HOW sure are you?

Check this:


Those are mounted WAAY too high on those bases, right?

Guess again:

(hopefully Hulk won't mind me reposting his picture.)

My point is: appearances can be deceiving. The regular cannons can fire over a razorback.

The dread on the left's arm is higher than the chassis, instead of showing another conversion so an offical autocannon dread arm in comparision.

Furthermore the hull of the right dread is higher than the other dread, which means the one on the left has it's arms too high.

I can't really make a call on this. I lost a game recently because there was a squad of fire warriors where all survivors were in the kneeling pose, which made them short enough to not see at all. Since steel legion heavy bolters came out I still haven't gotten over the laying down pose.

I'm thinking that either nothing should work differently from how the original models are supposed to be, or anything goes (for better or worse). So he could shoot over his tanks, but that also makes him visible when he might not have been normally. The only thing that might be unfair is having things too small... which leads me back to thinking about those tau.

erikwfg wrote:
I'm thinking that either nothing should work differently from how the original models are supposed to be,

Pardon?

Those Fire Warriors and Steel Legion models ARE original models, and they are looking exactly how they are "supposed" to.

Those are still weird to me.

I was referring to conversions should perhaps be forced to be about the same size and whatnot of the actual models.

It's a common convention in big tournaments that if your converted a vehicle or other model in a way which gives you an advantage in game, your opponent can choose to play as if the model were the normal size and shape.