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.

Exactly what constitutes MFA.
I see a lot of times this comes up on here.
1. The obvious MFA.- you know, the Russ with the punisher cannon that has 24" long barrels in order to double the range, the heavy weapon guy whose neck has been replaced by a 24" dowel rod so his head can "see" the entire board and shoot at anything while actually being in the back out of normal LOS.

2. Converting models to fit what the army would actually have. For example, not EVERY bastion orks would use would be a captured imperial one. There is the off chance that they may actually build their own and arm it with guns that had similar stats to the ones found on imperial ones. Unless you are using the actual bastion model, it is simply impossible to make it identical. heck, if your making it identical, you might as well use the imperial one whic goes back to being boring and pigeonholing the player into using a model that simply does not fit his army. itmay be that the ork player feels that the ork bastion would be shorter and "squatter" (slightly shorter than the imperial one and bigger around). This will likely disdavantage them in terms of the gun on top not having as good LOS. it might also give them a slight advantage against deep strikers by having a larger footprint and thus making a deep strike mishap more likely. Some could call that MFA even though it was never intended and is purely coincidental.

3. A player converted something jst for coolness value. I used to have a daemon prince/spawn made out of spare parts. From the waste down it was an old tyrannid snake guy (cant think of it's name)m It had multiple arms with ork arms and weapons and other odds and ends and even had an old warlord titan head for a head. some might say it was MFA because it was not a stock model. the arms did not stick out as far as the "stock" model and could thus fit into slightly tighter spaces. Not intended, it just came out that way. Yet an opponent could still cry MFA and force me to use a chaos marine champion or some such instead if they thought they would stand a better chance of winning because of it.

4. Making things right. My old chaos termies were the older metal ones on 25mm bases. i put them on the newer termy bases. As the models were already painted based and sealed, I just glued their bases onto the top midle of the new bases and build up the new bases so they were standing on slight humps. Some would cry MFA because they are now "taller" and have better LOS. That was not the intention. i was only trying to be more fai to my opponents by basing them properly (even though i didnt have to as the 25mm bases are what they came with. I went out of my way to disadvantage myself out of a sense of fairness towards my opponents. yet, someone could now cry MFA and deny me their use because they are taller. Or, they could try to force some sort of nonsense of telling me I have to fire them as though they were an inch shorter but still shoot at them with their new height.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

This.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

This is my own view as well. however, as I pointed out in a different thread, there are players who will claim that this is the case when it actually is not in order to keep you from using the model. For example, the ork bastion I described. It is not modeled for the purpose of gaining an advantage at all but because there is the POSSIBILITY of it giving an advantage, many players would ban it.
My chaos termies, Some would say that they were "converted for the purpose of gaining an advantage (of being taller) even with the full lnowledge that i did not and had only dont so to be fair to my opponents Just in order to keep me from using them.

The hobby is full of these (TFG) and we see them a lot in these threads. To be honest, Someone pulls that on me, i have no problem telling them i did it for cool value or to be fair to them and use it anyway. if they dont like it, go play someone else. It will be them having trouble picking up a game after a stunt like that, and to be honest, TOs are bright enough to tell the difference.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This is my own view as well. however, as I pointed out in a different thread, there are players who will claim that this is the case when it actually is not in order to keep you from using the model. For example, the ork bastion I described. It is not modeled for the purpose of gaining an advantage at all but because there is the POSSIBILITY of it giving an advantage, many players would ban it.

This is why, unless you're just playing with people you know well enough to judge whether or not it will be a problem, it is important when making custom models to consider how the way they are built will affect their in-game function compared to the correct model. Proving your intention in building the model is next to impossible, so it's easiest to avoid the issue by not making it one.

i think that goes both ways. The ork bastion being 1/10 of an inch bigger around than the 'stock one', is NOT intentionally trying to get an advantage.

that is the point. the ONLY way to avoid someone crying MFA is to never ever convert anything only using stock models straight out of the box. Even then, you still have the possibility of someone crying MFA. For example, "you modeled the guy with the lascannon using the kneeling legs so he would not show up in that window" you modeled him for advantage. you were supposed to use the standing legs for him".

That makes the hobby bland and boring. i remember reading a modeling article in a white dwarf. This was an older issue when the RTB01 was still the in style set and they also made DR Who and Judge Dredd models. They modeled a marine laying down using a section of sprue converted into a missile launcher. I see some of the guys i am describing going into GW HQ and telling them they couldnt use that marine models because it was MFA.

When people cry about that, just ignore them. Theres always people who are going to be anal about things like that, because they have a different idea to what the hobby is than you do.

A good example is Gretchin and the Aegis line. Dakka threw a fit when I suggested either an Orky aegis with holes for the Grot guns to see through, or taller grots, or a step behind the aegis, or to simply say "feth it, my grots can see through the wall and you can see the grots too." Meanwhile precisely zero of the players or TOs I've dealt with have taken issue with that.

One of the things I hoped for in Stronghold, sadly did not get, was something akin to what we saw in Escalation: Going faction by faction and giving us at least one unique fortification for each side!

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

I would only add that the modification can also come with a disadvantage and still be MFA. In fact the modification could be extremely disadvantageous but if it produces even the slightest bit of advantage in any way it is MFA.

Generally, if the modification could result in ANY difference in function from the factory standard, it might be accused of being MFA, so it's best avoided.

 Dakkamite wrote:
When people cry about that, just ignore them. Theres always people who are going to be anal about things like that, because they have a different idea to what the hobby is than you do.

A good example is Gretchin and the Aegis line. Dakka threw a fit when I suggested either an Orky aegis with holes for the Grot guns to see through, or taller grots, or a step behind the aegis, or to simply say "feth it, my grots can see through the wall and you can see the grots too." Meanwhile precisely zero of the players or TOs I've dealt with have taken issue with that.

That is a good example, because you are illustrating a way you think it's OK to alter a model to gain an advantage, which is the very definition of "modelling for advantage". To argue that people who don't think you should essentially cheap is being "anal" or have a "different idea of what the hobby is" is sort of TFG-ish rationalization, don't you think? You're putting the onus on the other person to object to letting you have an advantage.

If we wanted to houserule in for a game that grots could see over, or allow an ADL with holes in it or whatever, I'd be totally cool with it personally - I play Orks too, after all. But that's a permissive action, and if someone doesn't want to allow that, they're not wrong, either.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Generally, if the modification could result in ANY difference in function from the factory standard, it might be accused of being MFA, so it's best avoided.

You prove my point for me. GW encourages coversions. tat is where they make a fair bit of their money from, selling bits and kits just for that purpose. they also go out of the way to provie instructions on how and articles on tips andtricks.. yet, we have TFG who cries MFA over the slightest difference from a stock model whether it be a different number of rivets (one shaved off or an extra one added, to putting a catachan torso on top of a set of cadian legs purely to have an excuse to try to dock someone points in order to boost their own or to try to deny an opponent use of a model that they are not prepared to face. it is this TFG who tries his/her best to ruin the game for ALL other players who simply want to make their models look cool or stand out from the thousands of others that are just like it.
Jimsolo, I did ot mean you are the TFG, i meant the person crying "MFA" that we are talking about as being TFG.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

It's like obscenity: you'll know it when you see it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
yet, we have TFG who cries MFA over the slightest difference from a stock model whether it be a different number of rivets (one shaved off or an extra one added, to putting a catachan torso on top of a set of cadian legs purely to have an excuse to try to dock someone points

This sounds like a thing that never actually happened, frankly.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

That's all the answer you need, right here.

 Ouze wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
yet, we have TFG who cries MFA over the slightest difference from a stock model whether it be a different number of rivets (one shaved off or an extra one added, to putting a catachan torso on top of a set of cadian legs purely to have an excuse to try to dock someone points

This sounds like a thing that never actually happened, frankly.

A rivet can block LOS for a model who is firing a gun f it is in front of the eye of the models firing. We just discussed this in a different thread and the other person said that yes he WOULD cry MFA if there was a rivet missing that would otherwise have blocked LOS.
likewise, you can have a player who likes the steampunk mimage and add in extra rivets that might provide just that fraction of a centimeter to cause a model to be 25% covered.
Likewise, if you have put together cadian and catachan models, you will notice that they are "seperated' differently. One below the belt and the other above. Because of this, i have a model with "2 belts" that is slightly taler than the others who could mean he has is more able to get a LOS on a target. you are only fooling yourself if you believe that there are not players who would call it on that.

Are we really going to argue over the definition of something that isn't even a rule in the first place?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Generally, if the modification could result in ANY difference in function from the factory standard, it might be accused of being MFA, so it's best avoided.

You prove my point for me. GW encourages coversions. tat is where they make a fair bit of their money from, selling bits and kits just for that purpose. they also go out of the way to provie instructions on how and articles on tips andtricks.. yet, we have TFG who cries MFA over the slightest difference from a stock model whether it be a different number of rivets (one shaved off or an extra one added, to putting a catachan torso on top of a set of cadian legs purely to have an excuse to try to dock someone points in order to boost their own or to try to deny an opponent use of a model that they are not prepared to face. it is this TFG who tries his/her best to ruin the game for ALL other players who simply want to make their models look cool or stand out from the thousands of others that are just like it.
Jimsolo, I did ot mean you are the TFG, i meant the person crying "MFA" that we are talking about as being TFG.

On one hand I might agree. If someone objects to me fielding a conversion because of a theoretical advantage (even if it isn't going to apply to our game) is one thing. But what happens when the rules difference affects gameplay?

As a caveat to my original statement, I think that if you offer your opponents to play the model as if it were the stock model (same height, profile, etc) in any situation where the difference would matter, that will solve your problem against any reasonable opponent.

For instance, my Duke Sliscus is technically on a base too small (he's a fantasy figure) but if it ever matters, I've agreed to give my opponents the benefit of the rules difference between the base sizes. No one has ever objected.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A rivet can block LOS for a model who is firing a gun f it is in front of the eye of the models firing. We just discussed this in a different thread and the other person said that yes he WOULD cry MFA if there was a rivet missing that would otherwise have blocked LOS.

Just to clarify - the actual modification is irrelevant, I bolded the relevant part. Since you're so hung up on the single rivet thing I'd like you to not mock me.

Can you come up with a model in the range that this would apply to? I'm curious as to how relevant your hypothetical situation is.
The *fact* is that you've advocated modeling for advantage and were upset when you were called on it.
It doesn't matter how many disadvantages you'd pretend exist - the fact that you are using the modified model in an advantageous manner proves your intent and I'm 100% correct to call someone out for that.

Pyrian wrote:
Are we really going to argue over the definition of something that isn't even a rule in the first place?

Is there anything in the rules that covers this, other than the section on basing?

Evil Inc,
To get that answer you had to create such an unlikely scenario that we would never encounter on the table top to begin with and then load it full of variables designed so no other answer could be honestly forth coming. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then berate this poster constantly till you got the answer you wanted as they where not stupid enough to take such bait blindly. The fact they pointed your line of questioning was akin to 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' in the very post where you did get that answer was very accurate.

The fact the poster pointed out that you only wanted the answer to use it out of context was boarder line psychic, seeing within minutes of them posting you where doing just that....

 Dakkamite wrote:
A good example is Gretchin and the Aegis line. Dakka threw a fit when I suggested either an Orky aegis with holes for the Grot guns to see through, or taller grots, or a step behind the aegis, or to simply say "feth it, my grots can see through the wall and you can see the grots too." Meanwhile precisely zero of the players or TOs I've dealt with have taken issue with that.

On the other hand, I've heard of quite a few TOs and players who did take issue with autocannon dreadnoughts deliberately built in a way that allowed them to fire over the top of rhinos. Which is ultimately the exact same situation as your grot wall.

If you modify models to be able to see over something that they otherwise couldn't see over, people will take issue with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
You prove my point for me. GW encourages coversions.

They used to. Not so much lately. Have a flick through the latest Chaos Codex... Chaos used to be the poster child for conversion, due to there just being so many possibilities there. IIRC, there are a grand total of 3 converted models shown in the gallery in the 6th ed Codex.

.. yet, we have TFG who cries MFA over the slightest difference from a stock model ...

The thing is, this isn't the fault of the player. This is the end result of a ruleset that is written in such a way that the way a model is posed can drastically affect how it functions in the game. So yes, people will complain if your converted model allows it to do something better than a model that isn't converted... because they see this as you gaining an advantage that you shouldn't have.

This isn't helped by the fact that in the last 20 years, GW have never bothered to actually address it. If the rules included some sort of guidelines on acceptable deviation from the original model, that might help. If they switched to a LOS system where the appearance of the model didn't actually matter (as is the case in Warmachine, for example) then that would certainly help. Even if they just said 'Yes, how you build your models can affect how they function... this is intentional, model your hearts out!' that would help too.

Instead, players are left to determine for themselves what is and isn't acceptable. So someone who objects to you using parts that make your guardsmen taller isn't 'TFG'... he's just a guy who thinks they your modelling choices have given your models an advantage that they shouldn't have.

The test for MFA is simple: would you be willing to count the model as being the standard size/shape if it ever gives you an advantage?

If the answer is yes, it probably isn't MFA because you aren't able to gain any advantage from it. This includes things like your hypothetical removing a rivet where there's no realistic chance of actually having it make a difference (and let's be realistic here, you can't measure LOS so precisely that you can tell the difference between the standard model and the rivetless model).

If the answer is no, then it is textbook MFA. You've changed the model (or used an entirely different one), you've gained an advantage, and you want to use that advantage.

And no, I don't think this theoretical person who claims MFA because you removed a single rivet and forces you to play without the model really exists anywhere besides in your imagination.

 Peregrine wrote:
The test for MFA is simple: would you be willing to count the model as being the standard size/shape if it ever gives you an advantage?.

Not really a good test at all, because some of us would refuse. I certainly would. Not because I want an advantage, but because counting a model on the table as something different just causes too many headaches.

If you have an issue with the way my model is built, say so before the game and I'll either use a different list with that model removed, or find someone else to play. I'm not going to spend the whole game trying to determine LOS around where the model would be if it was a different model. That way lies madness.

I assembled one of my Annihilation Barges in a rather minimalistic fashion- I had to build it quickly so I didn't use its pilots or the bits that connect the two walls at the back to the central pylon. One thing I made sure of us that the overall dimensions of the vehicle did not change and all of its weapons remained where they were supposed to be.

I ended up liking the minimalistic look so I never "competed" the model, but it certainly can't be argued to be modeling for advantage (unless the advantage is the conservation of my free time ).

In the hypothetical case of an Ork FoR I'd say you have to find a way to make it work with the rough overall shape and measurments of the Imperial one- make the central tower some halfhazard skafholding propping up a giant cannon, but keep it having the same height and width. You want to make the structure more blocky? Easy- make its base structure out of a bunch of blocks that guve it the overall dimensions of the original, no need to start expanding the structure beyond its intended dimensions for that purpose.

As for the Grot/ADL issue, I'd say the answer is a definite no, otherwise you'd start seeing things such as Canoptek Scarabs manning Quad Guns while being invisible behind the ADL. In that way lies madnenss.

What if one were to create a super bad-ass green stuffed model, and therefore gain a psychological advantage over his opponent? Say: a seriously cool model that the opponent simply loves, and therefore wouldnt dare "destroy" as it would then be removed from the table and his TLoS, by being put back into its transport case? or a cheap, but durable tank, stacked high with corpses of marines painted in his chapter colours? And he ended up ignoring more viable threats just to try to remove that provocative vehicle?

Thats modifying a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model. True, it woulndt affect TLoS or other "hard" mechanics.

HIWPI: MFA subtracts gentleman points. But beautiful or cool models adds gentleman points, and often the end result comes out as a positive number.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
What if one were to create a super bad-ass green stuffed model, and therefore gain a psychological advantage over his opponent?

That would have absolutely no effect on most players.

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exactly what constitutes MFA.

If you modify a model for the purpose of garnering a (real or perceived) in-game advantage over the 'correct' model.

It's really that simple.

That's all the answer you need, right here.

I think the problem is simple here: You can only guess at someone else's purpose...

 Peregrine wrote:
The test for MFA is simple: would you be willing to count the model as being the standard size/shape if it ever gives you an advantage?

I'd go by this for MFA... Although 1 good example for MFA is how flyers usually angle at 2 angles whether the base is forwards or backwards. Which one is stock? no one knows. Is one of them MFA? I doubt it, but there's definitely one with an advantage =P

Nobody posted this yet?