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 built my soulngrinder more low profile ( chassis is 1/2 inch up). Now if i park him behind an aegis everything except the knees and torso are covered.
now here's the argument...he's really tall but thin and skinny top...huge bottom. So 75 % is covered...yet only 25% of his height is. So now 1/2 thwart people are saying he gets the cover..other 1/2 are saying no. So i wanted some of your valued opinions.

It doesn't say 25% of his height it says 25% of the model. The only real question is why you modeled it that way. If it was to get a cover save it's a no go. If it was to look cool then you are gtg.

It was done to look better...and make it a lower profile since it has less range then my defiler...the aegis just happened to be a bonus

Well, just mentioning that most people might consider it to be "Modeling for advantage" if you exploit the aegis bonus, and that might piss off a lot of people if they dont understand your purpose for a low profile.

just be warned of that when using this.

Sounds like modelling for advantage to me noo matter how you dress it up

How does modeling it lower have anything to do with range?

Well considering i bought and built my grinder 6 months before i even bought my aegis...i think id win that argument

tanker19 wrote:
Well considering i bought and built my grinder 6 months before i even bought my aegis...i think id win that argument

Just realize that people dont look on a model and goes "oh he made this a long time ago".
The story is up to you to tell, but the warning is that people will see it as a model for advantage as a first impression, sad but true.

Personally, if you assembled the soul grinder without modifying it, I wouldn't call it modeling for advantage.

I don't own a soul grinder, but I do have a defiler. If the soul grinders legs are on ball joints like the defiler, I'm sure it could be built low to the ground using the normal range of motion of the model.

If the legs were modified to be shorter than the normal range of motion of the normal model, it's modeling for advantage. I would only play against it if we counted it as being the standard size, which probably won't be short enough to get 25% from the aegis.

No modifications at all...since its ball joints you can make it low to the ground or stand up high...I decided to go low. Based on the fact that the defiler has a big cannon and seems like its more appropriate to have it sit higher like its overlooking the battlefield....while the grinder is more of a up close and personal look, so its closer to troop lvl.
But then again I was accused of the modeling for advantage thing when I parked my vindicator behind the aegis overlooking an objective (even though you cant modify it lower...its the way its built).
So one thing ive learned is people in 40k will try any excuse they can when faced with something they have a hard time against.
I mean seriously...Ive even not run my heldrake because my opponent said it was unfair (I can be a sportsman after all)

As long as you're not shaving parts off of it, snipping off certain bits and stuff, as far as I'm concerned, you can model it how you want.. For example, I have some of my Thunderwolves rearing up, because I envisaged them charging them into combat, or leaping them over obstacles but when I put them up behind an aegis defense line 25% of the model is covered, but they can still shoot, and people call it MFA.. :/ I don't even understand what the problem is, they only stay there for 1 turn, they're Thunderwolves ffs!

As long as you didn't modify the kit I think you're okay

post a pic. Would help to see what you are referring to.

lol...ill do that as soon as possible..can someone tell me how the hell you get a phone to ficus in on something like a model close up...mine always end up blury as hell

Most are fine if you take the shot from more than a few inches away (12"-36" are often good for small things like models). Most have an autofocus feature; if you slightly depress the camera button before pressing it all the way, they usually focus. If your shots are coming out blurry it may also be shaky hand syndrome. Try resting your phone on top of the table, or on top of a couple of books stacked on the table, to give you a stable platform on which to rest the phone and your hands. Use both hands if possible as well, and maybe rest your elbows on the table.

Gravmyr wrote:
It doesn't say 25% of his height it says 25% of the model. The only real question is why you modeled it that way. If it was to get a cover save it's a no go. If it was to look cool then you are gtg.

I just want to point out that this is not true.

A vehicle model does not have to be 25% obscured to get cover. It's the facing of the vehicle that has to be obscured. Only the facing that's being fired at, so if your shooting the front facing from a direction that's not directly in front (but still within its legal facing) you may see that most or all of the model is obscured, but the front facing may not be obscured by 25%. You would not get cover even though much more than 25% of the model is obscured, but not 25% of the facing.

You're correct, but you're missing the key element of what Gravmyr was saying.

He was pointing out that the rule requires 25% of the model (you're right to correct that to "facing" or "silhouette"), as opposed to 25% of the HEIGHT.

Some folks have a bad habit of equating the two, in part because on a vehicle with a square/rectangular frontage, the two are much the same thing.

I totally understand the point he was making, I just wanted to clarify that part. I see it explained as 25% of the model instead of facing all the time and it can make a huge difference.

Yes it can and I should have been more concise.