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.

Spent my morning out at some VA graveyards and stopped by a game shop after on the way home...

There was a discussion on some fellow who had participated in an event the previous Saturday with an army of custom models representing one of the main armies....

His custom army did not look at all like the army it represented and most of the figures, if not all as some who had been there claimed, was narrower and taller than the army represented. They were apparently way skinnier than normal, even the vehicles...

The TO had approved the army over the phone and was apparently shocked when he saw them but since he had gave his word sight unseen the army was allowed in.

I did not see the army since I did not participate due to a prior engagement with my family... Apparently issues came up....

So the question is what is generally recognized as OK vs definitely modelling for advantage and is modeling for advantage breaking the rules?

You're asking for a black and white answer to a grey area.

Basically, it it feels wrong, it probably is, and it is definitely against the rules.

Taking the army you mention though, in most cases being taller would be a disadvantage given TLOS, and the width is of questionable advantage depending on the nature of the terrain, but if players were unhappy, I would expect the TO to step in and at least try and find a compromise.

Back in 3rd people modeled Wraithlords in the fetal position, in 4th we saw Rhinos with Ship sails and last edition we saw tall riflemen Dreads. Modeling for advantage changes from unit to unit, table to table and edition to edition. Like Azreal13 said, if it feels wrong it probably is.

 Darkness wrote:
Back in 3rd people modeled Wraithlords in the fetal position, in 4th we saw Rhinos with Ship sails and last edition we saw tall riflemen Dreads.

Although with the possible exception of the dreads, we didn't actually see any of those things anywhere near as often as online discussion would lead you to believe...


Assuming you're talking about GW rules exclusively, modelling is not something that they have ever really bothered to cover. They simply assume that players will use the 'correct' models and leave it up to us to figure out the rest.

Whether or not it is 'ok' therefore comes down to the players involved. In general, And often just to how cool the model looks on the table...

Lol, 40k problems.

My army is made up of old models, all of which are smaller than their contemporaries and several that have deviating base sizes. This is one area where GW needs to really re-evaluate their rules. Do away with TLoS and abstract it properly and you will fix this whole issue. There is no other resolution- one mans MFA is anothe mans cool conversion.

GW doesn't even specify exactly what base size you're supposed to use with a model aside from the one it's boxed with.

Then we run into problems like the old 25mm bases vs the new 40mm bases for Terminators and Wraithlords. We have issues with models not yet released like the Tervigon and Harpy and people questioning their base size; for things like the Mycetic Spore, this is a huge issue still. We have GW basing even their own Biovore models on 60mm bases in showcases.

If you're modeling your army for advantage, you're doing it wrong. 40k is not meant to be a really competitive game, but there are some people that play it competitively. You're expected to keep things reasonable and there is no reason that a normal 40k player's interests of gaming and hobbying should conflict with a competitive player's interests.

Worst case, agree with your opponent beforehand that their models are unorthodox and that you can replace one of their oddly-shaped models with the intended model for the sake of LOS.

For the most part, however, keeping the 'footprint' of the base or silhouette of the model consistent with the GW-defined product is enough to prevent almost all conflicts.That is, unless you're Tyranids. Then you just get into arguments.

Well it comes down to the tournament organiser doesn't it? He shouldn't have accepted them on the phone, and when he finally saw them he should have ban.

I personally don't mind, what models are used as long as it doesn't venture into the unrealistic and/or is used for cheating.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well it comes down to the tournament organiser doesn't it? He shouldn't have accepted them on the phone, and when he finally saw them he should have ban

Banning someone's models seems exceptionally rude especially when they were already accepted. Some people drive a long way with their models looking forward to meeting like-minded individuals. For the tournament organizer to go back on their word is unacceptable.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well it comes down to the tournament organiser doesn't it? He shouldn't have accepted them on the phone, and when he finally saw them he should have ban

Banning someone's models seems exceptionally rude especially when they were already accepted. Some people drive a long way with their models looking forward to meeting like-minded individuals. For the tournament organizer to go back on their word is unacceptable.

Less unacceptable then the bad faith of a guy who asked for approval of his army and misrepresented how far from the norm they really were. I guess the organizer was taught a lesson to no longer give anyone a thumbs up or down without getting to see the entire army before hand though.

But it's really hard to say for sure, since we don't know what army the models were supposed to be, and what the models actually used were. However, given that is was something that caused consternation amongst those who saw it, and issues against those who played it, it's easy to say that whatever that dude did with the models, it wasn't reasonable.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well it comes down to the tournament organiser doesn't it? He shouldn't have accepted them on the phone, and when he finally saw them he should have ban

Banning someone's models seems exceptionally rude especially when they were already accepted. Some people drive a long way with their models looking forward to meeting like-minded individuals. For the tournament organizer to go back on their word is unacceptable.

Very true. This, of course, means he shouldn't have accepted it without seeing it first. The army was obviously not what he was expecting and it sounds like he wouldn't have allowed it if he knew. I'm sure he won't make that mistake again.

Poor rules breed poor rulings. I really like how Malifaux deals w the issue. Models are of a certain height, regardless of what the mini + base, so theres no incentive to have everything scrunched up. LOS is measured from the base, so if someone's pinky or feather hangs out, it doesn't matter. Walls are of an agreed upon height.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well it comes down to the tournament organiser doesn't it? He shouldn't have accepted them on the phone, and when he finally saw them he should have ban

Banning someone's models seems exceptionally rude especially when they were already accepted. Some people drive a long way with their models looking forward to meeting like-minded individuals. For the tournament organizer to go back on their word is unacceptable.

Very true. This, of course, means he shouldn't have accepted it without seeing it first. The army was obviously not what he was expecting and it sounds like he wouldn't have allowed it if he knew. I'm sure he won't make that mistake again.

The TO definitely should not have accepted the army without seeing it first.

My Iron Warriors army use normal CSM bodies, painted in IW colors with orange weathering pigments to show rust and I use them as plague marines. My Chaos Spawn are converted from Cold Ones and Black Orks (formerly used as Dragon Ogres in Fantasy), and my Heldrake is converted from an Ork Dakkajet since I think the Heldrake looks like a steaming pile of gak. All of these are WYSIWYG (the drake even has a turret mounted flamer bit!), and the last tournament I was in, I sent pictures of all the models in question to the TO asking for approval. If I got even a single No on them I would have played a different army. When I showed up I got a few compliments on my army but, my third round opponent who had lost to Grey Knights and Necrons the previous two rounds was pitching a fit because I wasn't using standard Plague Marines, Spawn, and especially the Heldrake (not like the damn drake could get cover or anything on these sparse boards). I told him if he had any issue with it, he could talk to the TO or the judge and if the TO or the judge found issue with it, I would drop out due to not having a legal army at that point. TO was unavailable, so his brother (the judge) says, "Yeah looks fine, I think the conversions are pretty cool and look sufficiently Chaos-y, that and he got approval last week."

If you have a model that is any way different from the stock standard model, you should always give seek permission from the TO and give photos to let them know see what they're approving. It's only fair to everyone involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Poor rules breed poor rulings. I really like how Malifaux deals w the issue. Models are of a certain height, regardless of what the mini + base, so theres no incentive to have everything scrunched up. LOS is measured from the base, so if someone's pinky or feather hangs out, it doesn't matter. Walls are of an agreed upon height.

True Line of Sight is really what causes MFA in 40k. If they did base to base, and a 25mm based model took up 1 inch by 1 inch and a 40mm base was 2x2, etc... then it wouldn't matter, but because they use TLoS, we get these wonky situations...

Where does all this stand with buildings in particular though? The GW rules for fire points and access points on buildings usually state "as per model" so how is modifying your buildings to change this viewed by the general community? I'm not especially interested in this from a tourney point of view, just more in general.

I can think of two main ways of doing this. One is completely converting, say, a bastion to have twice the fire points on each facing. Whilst this makes more fluff sense (having a building with 20 guys inside and only 2 shooting form some facings seems odd to me) it is also clearly modelling for advantage (although more grenades can be thrown in potentially, so there is a disadvantage).

On the other hand, you could buy 2 bastion kits, and make one bastion using entirely the walls with the 2 extra firepoints on. This would make 3 firepoints per facing, rather than 3 on 2 facings, and 1 on the other 2. Now you are using pieces included in the kit, but not in the quantities included in one box set.

What level of acceptability is there for either of these? (or even scratch building your own fortification to use the rules, which I'm guessing is what the "as per model" was added for in the first place)

Also, is either example even technically against the rules, seeing as the rules state "as per model"?

True line of sight encourages MFA and discourages some aesthetic conversions, such as figures mounted on a rock. It's really daft a figure is easier to shoot if he's holding his hands in the air. I'm sure some cool conversions do give advantage, but anyone purposefully modelling for advantage to exploit TLOS is going to be a git and best avoided. In a tournament, it's this sort of exploitative nonsense that gives competitive gaming a bad name.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
True line of sight encourages MFA and discourages some aesthetic conversions, such as figures mounted on a rock.

I put my Terminator Chaplain on some scenic bases I made with Hirst Art Blocks because it looked sweet. I'm hoping that's not an issue for people. I've only ever played with friends.

 kronk wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
True line of sight encourages MFA and discourages some aesthetic conversions, such as figures mounted on a rock.

I put my Terminator Chaplain on some scenic bases I made with Hirst Art Blocks because it looked sweet. I'm hoping that's not an issue for people. I've only ever played with friends.

That hurts you more than helps. I don't think anyone will complain.

You know now I'm thinking about it, I really can't see much advantage to a TLoS system over an abstracted volume one. How a model is put together should never advantage or disadvantage a player.

Is GWs attachment to the system simply to encourage conversions?

There is a similar thread about snipers shooting over aegis lines. Seems like this TLOS is really the problem. Personally I've never really ran into this problem because everyone I've played with is pretty chill and we can usually talk out a solution. I think MFA is kind of silly because of the GTG rule, which is a game mechanic that simulates what MFA is looking to emulate. In my mind the only way a model can crouch behind cover better is by using GTG.

The above Chaplain looks awesome and if I were trying to draw a bead on him to shoot his little boney face off I'd ask the player to replace him with a more standard model so I could draw LOS. I'd also expect that my foe would do the same when firing with the Chaplain. I've got an Abby on a big hefty base and that's exactly how I treat him.

See I really like the idea of a GTG type rule. A waist high wall should be able to completely conceal a human sized person if they decide to hide behind it (Warmachine gets this laughably wrong even though it uses abstract LOS).

As soon as you start pulling models off the table because they're not 'right' to use for TLoS you're admitting TLoS isn't working.

I think the best way to handle proxies and flamboyantly modeled miniatures is fudge them in as 'markers' (perhaps under the wobbly model rule). So they can be switched out for a real model, when size or LOS is called into question. Of course that would technically mean having a real model available, but I'm sure most people would be happy if you can just produce something the right size, so we can see what is really going on.

I try to do that with my Blood Angels, since a lot of them are depicted flying, and modeled much higher than would normally be the case. But I usually discuss it with my opponent first, and I bring along an old AOBR marine to act as a stand in, should there be a disagreement. I think a couple of times I've had to remind people that my Sanguinary Priest isn't really that tall (people love shooting that guy). But I've never actually had to switch a model out.

 Kojiro wrote:
You know now I'm thinking about it, I really can't see much advantage to a TLoS system over an abstracted volume one. How a model is put together should never advantage or disadvantage a player.

There is'nt one, unless you count bickering over rules "forging your own narrative". The game is already abstract as is. Its not like the character runs x feet then stands still until its his turn to go again. Turns themselves are abstract.

Along the same line, does this hurt my ability to play this guy in anyone's opinion?

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
There is'nt one, unless you count bickering over rules "forging your own narrative". The game is already abstract as is. Its not like the character runs x feet then stands still until its his turn to go again. Turns themselves are abstract.

Of course they are, which is why it puzzles me that his gem has survived. I mean I ask sincerely- can anyone name the benefits of TLoS over abstract?

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Along the same line, does this hurt my ability to play this guy in anyone's opinion?

Spoiler:

If that's a standard 25mm base, I don't see a problem.

 Ouze wrote:

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Along the same line, does this hurt my ability to play this guy in anyone's opinion?

Spoiler:

If that's a standard 25mm base, I don't see a problem.

Its a terminator base.

Is it just me having nostalgia or do i seem to recall in 4th having TLOS never seemed to matter . I remember it being base to base? I don't remember a lot of problems that have come up in 5th and 6th regarding terrain and cover having been big in 4th. Of course i was a newbie then so maybe i didn't notice it?

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Along the same line, does this hurt my ability to play this guy in anyone's opinion?

Spoiler:

If that's a standard 25mm base, I don't see a problem.

Its a terminator base.

Then yes, it does hurt your ability to play this guy for the following reasons:
1) Ranged combat is done via True Line of Sight, so the farther back on that base he is, the more 'range' I have to spend to hit him with my weapons.
2) Close combat is done via base to base which means that if you measure anywhere on that base you have a larger threat range than what he would have if he were on a 25mm base, this means that he can base more people than a 25mm model with the same equipment.
3) Because he has a larger footprint he also pushes those around him outwards meaning that he affects how template attacks affect him and his squad.

 swampyturtle wrote:
Is it just me having nostalgia or do i seem to recall in 4th having TLOS never seemed to matter . I remember it being base to base? I don't remember a lot of problems that have come up in 5th and 6th regarding terrain and cover having been big in 4th. Of course i was a newbie then so maybe i didn't notice it?

3rd edition used 'height and base' to block LOS. Models were cylinders the width of the base and the height of the model. Models BLOCKED LOS to models behind them which could not see more than 50% past that cylinder. (which means space around the model blocked LOS)

This lead to odd situations like 'rolling cover'. A Grot could BLOCK LOS to an Ork boy, who could BLOCK LOS to a Nob/MegaNOB who could BLOCK LOS to a Trukk/Buggie/kan, Which could BLOCK LOS to a Dred. Basically making an 'UNSHOOTABLE' army until you blasted the grots off the table (hence why grots had a special rule which allowed you to shoot through them because there was no COVER)

The other issue with 3rd edition was not only did you need LOS to shoot a unit, you needed LOS to a majority of the unit. This introduced FUNHOUSE MIRROR formations and BANANA formations which not only made models block LOS to other models but you would be unable to target the unit period because you couldn't actually see a majority.

While Crouching Wraithlords were the 'boogeyman', Technically you didn't modify war walkers and wraithlords as a wraithguard was slightly more than 50% the height of both, which means based upon the virtual cylinder rule, 5 Wraithguard, in BtB with each other created a wall which blocked 50% which made the Wraithlord/warwalker untargetable until you basically shot 3 of the 5 wraith guard off the table.

But we had goodies like chaos cultists on 40 and 60mm bases, with 180 models which would block LOS their basewidth to model height.

So while TLOS may seem like 'the devil', the abstract LOS we had before was a massive pain in the ass.

nkelsch wrote:
So while TLOS may seem like 'the devil', the abstract LOS we had before was a massive pain in the ass.

There is no reason to adopt that particular model though. Standardise base sizes (or at least model heights) and you can have a system like Malifaux or WM/H which doesn't suffer from those problems.

 Kojiro wrote:
Of course they are, which is why it puzzles me that his gem has survived. I mean I ask sincerely- can anyone name the benefits of TLoS over abstract?

Rules-wise it's easier than having to remember size categories and the like, although Warmahordes' system of just using the base size is just as easy. The main benefit of TLOS is player involvement. GW feel (and to a certain extent I agree with them) that players are more involved with the game by getting down to see what the model can see.

The fact that this has outweighed the potential issues caused by 'creative' modelling, in a game made by a company that up until recently very strongly encouraged people to go wild with modelling, is a sign of just who they have been trying to aim their games at. The fact that you can abuse the rules through modelling isn't an issue in a group of casual gamers, as they tend to be more or less self-policing. It's only when you get into the realm of pick-up games and tournaments that it really causes issues...


Personally, despite its flaws, I was a big fan of TLOS... right up until I played Warmachine and discovered just how much less prone to issues that game's LOS system is. Like the 'I do everything with my entire army, then you do everything with your entire army' turn system, it's a relic of a more forgiving age of gaming, and needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium.