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.

Saw this at my FLGS last week. The guy is doing a Necron-Cylon conversion, which will be pretty impressive. He has two Raiders, one of which is mounted perpendicular to the table, and the other which is as shown in the photo.
Obviously he isn't really trying to TFG, since one Raider is mounted in a manner consistent with a stock Croissant. This one, though....suspicious.

So, cast your vote, leave your two cents. Thanks!

care to show in the rulebook where the modelling for advantage section comes into play?

at the end of the day, while this wouldn't be permitted in a GW tournament, it looks cool, there are no rules based reasons for this to be an issue.

you don't have to like it, but you can't just tell him he cannot point his model downwards.

I can get 4 differing frontal heights on my storm talon alone on its stock base, I can suit it to my desire on the provision I do not alter it once the game begins. (no rule allowing the alteration of a model once the game has begun).

What's exactly wrong with the model? I mean, what advantage can he gain exactly here?

 Shadelkan wrote:
What's exactly wrong with the model? I mean, what advantage can he gain exactly here?

Because of the vertical swivel limitations on weapons, pointing it downwards in this manner makes it much easier to draw LoS to ground targets very close to the base of the Flyer. The negative offset is it might be harder to hit Flyers. Also, it's a freaking huge model, so it's much easier to target it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

you don't have to like it, but you can't just tell him he cannot point his model downwards.

Actually, since it's my game and my fun, I can refuse to play someone for whatever reason I desire. I can dislike it AND tell him that, AND not play him.
Now, I'm not gonna do that, because I like playing (win or lose) more than I fear his slanted Flyer....but that's a rather silly thing of you to say. Of COURSE I can tell him he can't point his model downward. Just like he can tell me that he hates Daemons and would rather play against my Grey Knights. Being friendly to each other, we are free to be honest with our opinions.

And that same down swivel means he cannot shoot very distant targets either.

The only issue that I can that might he TFG is if he tries to contest objectives with the front of the flyer because it is much closer to the ground.

If he does that with Doomscythes only and leaves his Nightscythes in conventional layout, I'd be a fair bit more suspicious.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

you don't have to like it, but you can't just tell him he cannot point his model downwards.

Actually, since it's my game and my fun, I can refuse to play someone for whatever reason I desire. I can dislike it AND tell him that, AND not play him.
Now, I'm not gonna do that, because I like playing (win or lose) more than I fear his slanted Flyer....but that's a rather silly thing of you to say. Of COURSE I can tell him he can't point his model downward. Just like he can tell me that he hates Daemons and would rather play against my Grey Knights. Being friendly to each other, we are free to be honest with our opinions.

yes and no.

I didn't say that you HAD to play him, what I said was you have no RULES based reason not to play him.

in a tournament format you would have two choices, either forfeit or play, and just like you he is playing 'his game' to have fun with his army.

also I'll re-phrase it, you CAN tell him you don't like it, but you certainly CAN'T tell him that he cannot point the nose down as he can do whatever he like with his models.

the only stipulation rules wise is that he cannot alter the way he has positioned the model once the game has begun, there are no rules that allow you to alter your models during a game, so if he angled it too far he wouldn't be able to shoot very far at all.

Personally,
I don't think players will encounter situations where they have to fire upwards any where near the number of situations where having an decreased minimal range would be a benefit... far from enough times to state that the advantages and disadvantages balances themselves out.

Seems to me RAW: It is not mounted in the fashion that a normal 'scythe is (and is not the actual model, so is a proxy if that matters), so yes, it is MFA. That said those look wicked, so HIWPI is I'd play against them anyway. Rule of Cool trumps minor angle differences in my opinion.

I'm also of the opinion that fliers need broader vertical (both up and down) arcs of fire on their guns to account for the more mobile weapons platform and strafing runs that should be able to be performed there-with. The previous sentence sadly lacks any rule support currently though.

I would be iffy about playing against it. If my opponent agreed that if any rules disputes regarding modeling were to come up, he'd treat it as being a stock model, then that would solve all the problems. As it is, it's just too different.

Neorealistic,
Agreed, I can not see a good reason to require people to have knowledge in trigonometry just to play the game right.

I have wondered how some flyers with infantry weapons, such as bolters, deal with having such a tiny window of fire. I then look at certain flyers such as the Tau's strike-fighter, which has missile pods positioned to naturally point upwards at 45 degrees, and wonder if they ever get to fire the things without house rules. As far as I can recall, you don't have permission to point the weapon as far down as possible and then measure 22.5 degrees from that point. The 45 degree rule comes into play if the weapon systems can not be pointed at the enemy normally, which is very likely to occur with a lot of vehicles that have weapons fixed parallel to the ground. Therefore we have rules preventing a vehicle, that likely spent points for that weapon, from ever being able to fire....

Don't get started on that battle tank the sisters have, think it is the Exorcist, which has weapons pointed 90 degrees upwards!

PS:
Sorry for a slight detour off topic, as you can tell I am not a fan of this Rule and feel it was tacked on at the last minute without proper consideration.

Yeah I agree. It seems like a Band-Aid sort of rule that worked alright when talking about most vehicles (with the exception of the sisters tank that you noticed) But is definitely starting to show it's age when trying to deal with fliers and anything else elevated above the table.

The biggest clue to me is the fact the Rule in question states one would 'rarely' have to use it, which is clearly wrong if any flyers are on the board or any tall terrain piece for that matter.

I would have no problems with it. How else can you perform a strafing run if you're not actually aiming at the ground?

Reminds me of the Land Speeders I put together recently. Some of them came with a ball-and-socket joint for the stand, some didn't. So, some can bank and elevate to bring their guns to bear, but some can't? The simple fact is, GW never really designed their models or their rules for a true three dimensional environment.

I'd play him, but it would bug the hell out of me. All of mine are modeled level (one - because that's the only way they can be fitted unless you start cutting things up, and two - I would hate having all my scythes look like they were a fraction of a second from impacting the ground). I would ask that he measured as if they were mounted level.

The 22.5 degree thing is stupid, but it is what it is. Playing around the 7" dead zone in front of the flyer is not that difficult.

Could you rotate your picture too for the love of god?

I don't see any issue. People get too uptight about these things. He is at a huge disadvantage as well having a massive hull like that. He can be shot easier while still measuring from his own weapon mounts.

Also it's a vehicle and a transport so it can never contest things so that issue is moot.

While there is technically an air of MFA-ness there due to vertical fire arcs on weapons, from my experience most people ignore the vertical fire arc on flyer weapons anyway... so it wouldn't make any practical difference on the table.

The real test - are they willing to play as if the model was level for determining the fire arcs. If they say no, then that's exactly why the model is angled like that and thus MFA.

Jefffar wrote:
The real test - are they willing to play as if the model was level for determining the fire arcs. If they say no, then that's exactly why the model is angled like that and thus MFA.

Uh...no, that's not a 'test' of anything. I refuse to treat models as if they were modelled differently. Not because I'm looking for an advantage, but because it's just a pain in the nethers.

If you have a problem with how a model is built or represented, point it put before the game and I'll either remove it or go find someone else to play... But I'm not going to spend the while game pretending it is something different to what it actually is.

I wouldn't say the raider's MFA though. Since you can model the standard flyer to dive at a 45 degree angle. But I generally just use a rule of thumb that the flyer's minimum range is 7 inches from the weapon. I came up with this number by doing pythagoras theorem on the height of the model off the table and that should be the standard across all flyers with the same restrictions. Raider's bigger too, so harder to hide behind tall buildings.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I would be iffy about playing against it. If my opponent agreed that if any rules disputes regarding modeling were to come up, he'd treat it as being a stock model, then that would solve all the problems. As it is, it's just too different.

This. The most common convention about models like this which I see used in tournaments is that, if the modified model grants the owner an advantage of some kind, the opponent can require it to be treated as the stock model. If the modified model incurs a disadvantage to the owner, they suffer it.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Could you rotate your picture too for the love of god?

It is rotated correctly on my computer. I tried several times to delete and upload a new, rightside-up file onto dakka, with no success.
Just turn your computer on its side, that'll fix it.

I see this crap come up a lot, and honestly, if people want to build their own models, at long as it "Resembles" the model in question they are trying to mimic, I will always play against it.

Too many times I've seen people say it's MFA for a custom model to look or be built a certain way. I ask them how they mean. Case and point, my Decimator Siege engine. The way its supposed to be be build gives it a bit of ducking space, but no matter how you try to build it or for that matter most MCs (Riptieds) you can EASILY MFA with them by arching them back in dynamic poses, shaving off a good inch to hide behind a building, my Decimator stands a full inch higher than normal. Does it give me better LOS? Not really, does it give YOU better LOS to it? Absolutely. Is it MFA? No, it's called creativity. Something people seem to lack these days, having gotten into this hobby for those specific reasons.

I've seen all sorts of conversions and contraptions from Ork players. Does that mean their custom Warbuggies and Trakks can't be played because of banners and Waaagh! tokens being everyhwere? Oh it must be MFA because of how high up the gun is placed on that Battle Wagon, That gun should go here and this one there! Legit son - Stuff it already. If you don't like the creativity of other players, get out of the hobby or be lonely.

Treat it as a stock GW model for footprint.

I would play the guy, and if the way he was running the model was clearly altering the gameplay in a way that felt advantageous, I'd call him out on it.

Chances are the actual gameplay of it being angled downward slightly isn't really gonna change a thing. Just saying this is probably a situation where the internet intelligensia will make much ado about nothing.

sonicaucie wrote:
I wouldn't say the raider's MFA though. Since you can model the standard flyer to dive at a 45 degree angle.

Really? Page number please... If a flyer is on the flyer base correctly, you do not have a 45 degree range to make it tilt. I have multiple flyers and I cannot make them 'tilt down' 45 degrees without modifying the model and the base.

And tilting down is always an advantage with no disadvantage. This "advantages balance out the disadvantages" is a lie in every circumstance because people do things to maximize the advantages and negate the disadvantages. Since *NO ONE* needs to shoot up at any angle for a flyer since there is nothing taller than them, modifying the flyer so the 22 degree up angle is level with the table and can see flyers but drastically increase the ground-based arc is MFA.

Pretty sure that someone who was worried about air to air combat wouldn't be tilting their model down in the first place.

If you did it for a 'cool conversion' (or in this example a lazy stand-in), then why do you feel you deserve an advantage? Why not take the stand-in and position it as close to a stock model as possible? Because you want the advantage? ah.

I would be perfectly fine playing against this model if it was played with a firing arc like the stock model.

If anything that is modeled for disadvantage. The nose of that thing is 7" forward from the base meaning I can get melta guns in range of its hull from longer distances for example.

I think much of this needs to take the player into consideration rather then make blanket statements. Is he a WAAC player? Ids he an avid hobbier instead?