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.

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times elsewhere, and I really want to get to the bottom of this.

What exactly counts as 'modelling for advantage'?

For example, if I use the shorter peg on a flight stand is that MFA?

But conversely if you insist that I use the taller stand is that not MFA?

IMO, as long as you are using the pieces, unaltered as supplied, assembled in the suggested manner as supplied by GW then MFA is an unsupported construct used by players to gain an advantage over an opponent.

I would like to hear other peoples views on this.

Cheers

Andrew

It is not MFA because the kit comes with both parts and gives you an option to use either one of them. As long as you are using the standard parts assembled as the instructions tell you to build it there's no problem.

"Modelling for advantage" is a term made up by people who don't want to believe that their dice game is partially based on artwork. The rules of the game are based on what the models look like. People who complain about how a model is put together or converted are basically missing the point of 40k.

On the flip side, if you need to model your carnifex crouching on the base rather than rearing up like normal just so you can hide it out of line of sight just so that you can win a game of 40k, then you have my deepest sympathies and my honest pity.

 Ailaros wrote:
People who complain about how a model is put together or converted are basically missing the point of 40k.

So what does that say about you, given that you just complained about how a model was put together or converted?

Using supplied parts are never MFA. That said, sawing off the flight stands so they're shorter than supplied, or removing them completely before the skimmer is immobilized or destroyed, are both against the rules.

Against which rules?

 Ailaros wrote:
Against which rules?

Page 3:
MODELS AND BASE SIZES
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base
they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in
his collection on unusually modeled bases. Some models aren't
supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness,
relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to
mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using
models of a similar type as guidance.

Well the removing the stand is against "must be on supplied bases" rule at the beginning of the BRB. (ninja'd)

You should model all of your guys crawling on their bellies.

I kind of agree with both Peregrine and Ailros. As long as it fills more or less the same volume as the "official" model and uses the supplied base (which I will never require you to rebase old models) then go for it. I actually love facing and seeing converted and specialized models and think alot of the models look better in alternate positions than what the kit calls for.

If at a tournament it might be more strict but those rules are the TOs not mine.

A good example I remember from a while ago was someone had a GK army with mostly razorbacks and rifledreads. They put their autocannons on the dreads up higher than normal (it looked stupid as hell) so that they could get LOS over the razorbacks in front. THAT is MFA in my eyes.

If you do any conversion that increases, decreases, or modifies the model's volume, height, or profile, then there will be someone who is of the opinion that you are modelling for advantage.

I think this is a situation where we can apply a little bit of reasonability. Your scout who's kneeling can still shoot over the ADL, provided I can still would him. We can measure true line of sight from a crisis suit which has been modelled to be hovering a little ways off the ground, which might technically be giving him a tiny bit of extra height, which might indeed result in lost cover saves. I'll play you with your sawed off skimmers.

I think it isn't something I'm going to worry about until it gets egregious. A deffrolla that has been extended to stick out seven inched in front of the trukk is beyond the bounds of acceptability. I knew someone who built a Wraithlord sitting Indian style just to see if he could do it, but ran into a couple of folks who FLIPPED out that he was "trying to cheat." (The basing of the model included a tree which came to the approximate height of a Wraithlord for just such emergencies.)

In short, like most other 40k related conundrums, I think we can manage modelling for advantage by keeping our heads and applying some reasonability to the situation.

Unit1126PLL wrote: you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish

So, it's against the rules to alter the base that I put my models on because... why?

 Ailaros wrote:
So, it's against the rules to alter the base that I put my models on because... why?

Because you removed the important part of that rule that says that it's talking about the rare special case where you have a model that comes without a base, not the general case. And then you removed the other half of the sentence that says that "appropriate" is defined by the base size used for similar models. The general rule is very clear:

The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with.

If you use a base other than the one the model comes with you are not following the rules. And even the special-case exception just gives you permission to fix the problem and mount the model on the standard base, it does NOT give you permission to use a completely different base size.

Nowhere does it say you can't modify the base. In fact, it references bases that have been modified elsewhere in the rule book (for instance, when talking about cover saves, or determining line of sight). If you can mount an infantry model on a piece of cork on a base, then you can do other conversion work with bases as well.

Of course if they simply treated the models as counters representative of the figure instead of a literal depiction. And dropped the stupid 'true line of sight' this wouldn't be an issue. Instead we have people worrying about someone claiming to be able to shoot someone standing behind a wall because the model has his hands in the air. Anyone sensible would assume the model is crouched to use the cover.

 Ailaros wrote:
Nowhere does it say you can't modify the base.

It doesn't need to. You need specific permission to do anything in this game, so unless you can quote a rule giving permission to modify a base (other than the rare-case exception for dealing with models that didn't come with bases) then you can't do it.

In fact, it references bases that have been modified elsewhere in the rule book (for instance, when talking about cover saves, or determining line of sight).

Those are purely aesthetic "modifications" with no impact on gameplay (in fact the rule in question specifically says that you ignore those "modifications"). This is a discussion about making functional changes to a model.

Peregrine wrote: You need specific permission to do anything in this game, so unless you can quote a rule giving permission to modify a base (other than the rare-case exception for dealing with models that didn't come with bases) then you can't do it.

Then you are playing an entirely different game than anybody who has ever done modelling or conversion work.

MFA, RoC, etc etc are player conventions. It boils down to what you are happy with, Its not something you can argue either way with RAW, which has been covered on dakka. I have converted Zoans, some of the last and new editions, so they are all slightly different sizes. This means some can see over some typically used cover and some cannot. If I am in doubt with a taller Zoan and my opponent being happy to use that models current LOS I ask, and, true it has never been a issue.

I find it mostly depends on Intent. If someone comes over with half a Mawloc stuck on a base and then tries to claim a ADL cover save, I would not allow that, but in the 99.9% of conversions, people are fine.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote: You need specific permission to do anything in this game, so unless you can quote a rule giving permission to modify a base (other than the rare-case exception for dealing with models that didn't come with bases) then you can't do it.

Then you are playing an entirely different game than anybody who has ever done modelling or conversion work.

Or perhaps we quote RAW to protect us from people who take their skimmers off of their bases, but still find good conversions fun to play with?

 Ailaros wrote:
Then you are playing an entirely different game than anybody who has ever done modelling or conversion work.

No, you're just confusing "the rules allow you to do X" with "most people are fine with you doing X". Conversions are generally accepted as long as they aren't MFA, but that's just because the popular opinion is that they're cool and you should allow them even though they aren't legal RAW.

It is not that hard to tell when someone is modeling for advantage just like it is not hard to tell when someone consistently moves their models farther than legally allowed.

Because some 40k players are kind of obtuse it would probably be a good idea for GW to include the volumetric drawings of model classes like Privateer does.

 Ailaros wrote:
"Modelling for advantage" is a term made up by people who don't want to believe that their dice game is partially based on artwork. The rules of the game are based on what the models look like. People who complain about how a model is put together or converted are basically missing the point of 40k.

On the flip side, if you need to model your carnifex crouching on the base rather than rearing up like normal just so you can hide it out of line of sight just so that you can win a game of 40k, then you have my deepest sympathies and my honest pity.

Crouchafex? PFFT. Real gamers make bellysliding Trygons.

Cranked flight stands are a particular pet peeve of mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote: You need specific permission to do anything in this game, so unless you can quote a rule giving permission to modify a base (other than the rare-case exception for dealing with models that didn't come with bases) then you can't do it.

Then you are playing an entirely different game than anybody who has ever done modelling or conversion work.

Modeling or conversion work is fine, as long as you reasonably play it as if the model was not converted beyond it's normal configuration

REAL gamers grind up genestealers so they are "coming up from the ground"

Which would be a conversion and is a completely different arguement. What I'm trying to get at is standard figures.

Another example, most infantry sets come with a crouching figure option. I'm thinking scouts and FW. I'm sure there are a few more out there.

Now it is easier to hide 25% of a kneeling figure to claim a cover save than a standing one. So if I use a kneeling figure can that not be construed as MFA?

Cheers

Andrew

No, because you havent actually changed the model. You are using a stock, basic model.

Things were so much better in the days before all of this "true line of site" crap. There were never so many complaints back when:
1) could see 6" into and 6" out of terrain
2) terrain was on bases, if you were in the base you were in terrain
3)vehicles & MC block vehicles, MC, and infantry
4) nothing blocked a skimmer
5) you couldn"t see through terrain if you were out of
it and on the other side.

This is just the basics of how it work in 3rd & 4th, but it was much easier. There were arguments, but they were fewer and no body cared what you put your models on. You also never had people doing stupid things like putting guns on a dread head to see over a rhino, because vehicles always blocked vehicles.

I know not everyone wants to turn back the clock, but it would be better it the design guys would remember that as long as this is a table top game it is going to be an abstract of a real battle and trying to make it a first person shooter will never work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
REAL gamers grind up genestealers so they are "coming up from the ground"

Boom! Also, all 200 of my space marines are modeled with the kneeling legs from the devastator squad pack.

It's not MFA. It's called ducking. As a tactic, its unreliable at best. But you do feel more safe and secure, if only briefly.


To the OP, if the model comes with both flight stands, use which ever one you prefer!

If a model comes with 2 bases, use the round one for WH40k and the square one for WH Fantasy!

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Things were so much better in the days before all of this "true line of site" crap. There were never so many complaints back when:
1) could see 6" into and 6" out of terrain
2) terrain was on bases, if you were in the base you were in terrain
3)vehicles & MC block vehicles, MC, and infantry
4) nothing blocked a skimmer
5) you couldn"t see through terrain if you were out of
it and on the other side.

This is just the basics of how it work in 3rd & 4th, but it was much easier. There were arguments, but they were fewer and no body cared what you put your models on. You also never had people doing stupid things like putting guns on a dread head to see over a rhino, because vehicles always blocked vehicles.

I know not everyone wants to turn back the clock, but it would be better it the design guys would remember that as long as this is a table top game it is going to be an abstract of a real battle and trying to make it a first person shooter will never work.

Sorry to go off topic, but wow, no wonder some of you veterans like to talk about 3rd & 4th so much, those rules make so much more sense than TLOS... Also much easier to play...

Baronyu wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Things were so much better in the days before all of this "true line of site" crap. There were never so many complaints back when...

Sorry to go off topic, but wow, no wonder some of you veterans like to talk about 3rd & 4th so much, those rules make so much more sense than TLOS... Also much easier to play...

Thanks, some times us old guys do know what we are talking about
The rest we just make up.

Those old LOS rules sound alright. At least if you've got firm guidelines there will be less disagreement about it.