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.

If you change the base like that, you are changing the model. It's footprint will change for a variety of effects: assault, blast weapons, range.

That amounts to modeling for advantage which is against the rules.

We didn't change the base. We didn't change the model either. It's footprint might've changed though because of a variation in attachment. Now could you stop acting like you're the legislator, judge and jury and point out the rulebook page where it becomes evident to us why exactly this isn't allowed?

You are going to have to make a physical modification

It's still a matter of attachment only. What you said is completely irrelevant. I'm willing to reconsider if I only had a rules reference here and hopefully a specific one that specifies the angle variations of flying models, the exact spots on round bases where models have to stand on, etc.

Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Mannahnin wrote:Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Atleast you admit that you're going to enforce a house rule. Your motivations are your own.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You won't be able to glue it at any sort of angle that matters without cutting the stand. Cutting it = modeling to advantage.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

Mannahnin wrote:
I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

I probably wouldn't kick them right away either, I was fuming at the ridiculousness of the arguement. Now if they argued with me about, I would tell them they couldn't play with the vendettas the rest of the day. They fight on that then they get kicked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You won't be able to glue it at any sort of angle that matters without cutting the stand. Cutting it = modeling to advantage.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

I own two of them, I play them all the time. To get an angle to do what is described the model would not only look ridiculous but you would either need to cut the stand of use three bottles of glue.

Have you actually put this model together? Because there's no cutting necessary in the process Therion has described. You probably won't even have to glue it. The recess for the base is pretty deep and I've seen Valk/Vends at near 45 degree angles just by inserting the stand at an angle.

They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IG that has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

TO's like Mannahnin who make rulings like this because the sake of subjective game balance should just be open about it and enforce composition restrictions instead of fighting a losing battle about modeling freedom.

Sourclams, I'll be happy to check out the model. If it is indeed possible without any modification, I'll be very surprised. It's a darn long kit. And it will limit what the Valk can shoot at with a 22.5 degree upward traverse for its guns.

Therion wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Speaking as a TO, the final effect is what matters. If you have modified/assembled the kit in a way that garners you a significant game advantage over the stock normal assembly, I'm going to veto.

I wouldn't kick you out of the tournament, but I would require you to play it as normal. No overlapping the edge. Need to move over 6" to get onto the table.

Atleast you admit that you're going to enforce a house rule. Your motivations are your own.

No house rule. A clear and consistent implementation of the obvious intent of the rules when it comes to Modeling For Advantage. If you want to ignore the table edge being the end of the world, as it's always been, and overlap units off it, that's on you and your conscience. If your opponents are okay with it, have a party.

I own two of them, I play them all the time. To get an angle to do what is described the model would not only look ridiculous but you would either need to cut the stand of use three bottles of glue.

You're either being hyperbolic or you own a completely different run of the kit than what I have. The model naturally sits between 0 and 30 degrees off horizontal. With truly minimal adjustment to the flight stand you can get 45 or more.

I don't have the BRB next to me now but it says something about modelling to your advantage with scenic bases for characters and such and that you need your opponents permission. Altering the base of the valkyrie fits in this so it's not a house rule. It also says that models should be based on the supplied bases. Then you cant really go and cut in the base can you?

Anyways, I'm 100% behind that this is a clear case of modelling to your advantage since you are making a change to gain a benefit. And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

Therion wrote:They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IG that has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate".

And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

No, because the angle is so shallow (45 degrees is not much) that the rules would allow LOS to be drawn to anything at the Vendettas level or lower.

Therion wrote:TO's like Mannahnin who make rulings like this because the sake of subjective game balance should just be open about it and enforce composition restrictions instead of fighting a losing battle about modeling freedom.

Players like Therion who react so strongly to being called out on breaking the rules should just be open about it and admit that they care more about winning or cadging a minor game advantage than they do about obeying the rules or being fair with their opponent.

Does that feel nice? It's the same kind of hyperbole. I think you're better than this, and you've lost perspective a bit, here. I know you're too good a player to need to stoop to this junk.

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate"

I don't own a single Vendetta model. Eventhough I occasionally might play with IG I have no vested interest. The fact that me and sourclams both see this as a complete non-issue while having the actual rulebook on our side should count for something. On the other side we have you and another tournament organiser who are actively calling anyone who play and model by the rulebook cheaters. I can't think of any compliments for your argument, I'm sorry.

sourclams wrote:

And just a thought? With such an extreme angle, couldnt your opponent just claim that you just have LOS with your weapons 5" infront of your vendetta

No, because the angle is so shallow (45 degrees is not much) that the rules would allow LOS to be drawn to anything at the Vendettas level or lower.

Hey, would you do us a favor, and try it out with one of your models and take pictures? Including from above showing the length with a "normal" (as pictured on the box) angle, vs the increased angle you need to get a 6" or less length, measured from directly above? One pic each, front and side, of the model mounted at each angle, should do it. It'd be nice to put the facts out there so we can all see it easily.

I'll see what I can do [about posting a pic or three later].

Therion wrote:

Wow. I've always respected you, too. Certainly no emotions on your side, Mr. "shallow" and "hate"

I don't own a single Vendetta model. Eventhough I occasionally might play with IG I have no vested interest. The fact that me and sourclams both see this as a complete non-issue while having the actual rulebook on our side should count for something. On the other side we have you and another tournament organiser who are actively calling anyone who play and model by the rulebook cheaters. I can't think of any compliments for your argument, I'm sorry.

Okay. I can appreciate the value of a good old stubborn Dakka rules argument from a neutral perspective. I don't play against them that often, either, so I'm not all that invested in the outcome either.

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

As a next step, I'd like to see photographic documentation, so we can establish the truth. I don't have a Valk, Vend, or SR in the house, so I can't physically check it myself until (at earliest) this weekend.

Therion wrote:They have no basis in the rules or even common GW practise in their argument. Normally I wouldn't be so sure but in this case their shallow position can only be explained by emotions of unwarranted hate of mechanised IGthat has been a succesfull army in the US (much much more so than in Europe) for a good while now.

I play mech IG. What I don't do is cheat.

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

I'll agree that if the base is being cut then it's not the same base the model was supplied with and therefore illegal. However I'm undecided whether small modifications to the underside of the Valkyrie model in order to allow the base to fit in a required angle would be against the rules. My instinct is that it isn't and that especially if the modification required for it is absolutely minimal (few millimeters of shaving plastic for example) then it should no question be allowed because one can just argue it's changed that way due to heavy use, transportation, wear and tear etc. I know I've had problems with the holes in the undersides of my Land Speeders atleast.

This thread belongs to the YMDC forum pretty much and I'm discussing in a similar fashion that we normally see there. Whether I respect (a lot) someone in the thread or not shouldn't affect the way I argue my opinion.

Mathematically to get the 12" long vendetta to fit into a 6" long space you need to mount it at a greater than 60 degree angle to fit the rear fins on. There is just no way that can happen on the normal mount. That requires extensive and obvious modification.

Wow... I allready said it was a suggestion made in jest by my housemate. I have no intention of trying to adjust my Valk/Vend in such a way.

I allready found a much simpler solution to the problem. My revised list no longer features a Valkyrie or Vendetta, and works just fine. Infact, it's going to save me alot of money as I start to step up to 2000+ points, prepping for the summer tourneys around here. I dont have to buy more £45 kits from GW, I can get by with much cheaper Chimeras instead.

There is one fundamental question that answers whether or not your extremely angled Vendetta is against the rules?

Why did you/wish to model it that way?

Therion wrote:

I disagree that this is allowable "by the rulebook". My argument is premised on the idea that the Valkyrie is sufficiently long (IIRC 8"+) that to get the angle needed, physical structural modification (of the model or base) will be required. If that is so, then you must concede that I am correct on the rules.

I'll agree that if the base is being cut then it's not the same base the model was supplied with and therefore illegal. However I'm undecided whether small modifications to the underside of the Valkyrie model in order to allow the base to fit in a required angle would be against the rules. My instinct is that it isn't and that especially if the modification required for it is absolutely minimal (few millimeters of shaving plastic for example) then it should no question be allowed because one can just argue it's changed that way due to heavy use, transportation, wear and tear etc. I know I've had problems with the holes in the undersides of my Land Speeders atleast.

I hear you, and can understand why you might draw the line there, and won't call you a dirty cheater for it. For my money, though, any modification at all, if done for the purpose of obtaining a game advantage, inevitably falls under the heading of MfA.

Therion wrote:This thread belongs to the YMDC forum pretty much and I'm discussing in a similar fashion that we normally see there. Whether I respect (a lot) someone in the thread or not shouldn't affect the way I argue my opinion.

Yes and no. I agree that this has become more of a YMDC discussion, and I think tone-wise most of it's been fine for the rather heated way we often allow debate to go on there (and in Tactics, for that matter). But when you start ascribing negative personal judgments and selfish ulterior motives to the other party in a debate, that's where you start to break the rules, and lose the respect of the audience. Opining that a differing opinion in this debate can only be explained by selfishness or hate is silly and inappropriate, especially when it's manifestly false, as in the case of ArtfcllyFlvrd, who plays the army himself, and me, whom I would rather expect you would know is not going to be that irrational. I think it's worth avoiding that kind of rhetoric even if the other parties involved are complete strangers, though.

You must understand you're going to get a heated response from people if you make them feel they are being tagged cheaters for being absolutely bona fide about their opinions and the way they play the game. The fact that you even brought up whether you would kick me out of your tournament or not was already enough of an insult for me to question why you would ever even consider such a thing in a case like this. I stand by my statements (which were addressed to both of you collectively instead of just one person). Whether ArtfcllyFlvrd plays IG or not is largely irrelevant just like it's irrelevant that I don't play IG actively. To me it was obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced in this thread and anyone who disagreed with it was being labeled an immoral cheater.

The much worse issue with the vendetta is: Can stuff move under it's wings/can it move over other stuff, and if you allow both/either of these, what happens when it gets hit by a blast or a flamer?

Silly GW releasing models that the rules don't support.

Therion wrote:You must understand you're going to get a heated response from people if you make them feel they are being tagged cheaters for being absolutely bona fide about their opinions and the way they play the game.

I encourage you to re-read my posts and check whether I called anyone a cheater. I said a particular action would not fly with a TO. I didn't say the person who tried it is a bad person. Enhance your calm.

I'm sure people are bona fide and sincerely think they're playing by the rules while actually breaking said rules all the time. It happens frequently. It's called a mistake, or inadvertent cheating, rather than intentional. Like the guys who think the base is what matters for measuring to/from their Vendetta or SR. I played a BA player last week and had to correct him on this. Totally nice guy. He didn't realize he was breaking the rules by measuring 24" onto the table coming out of reserves and putting the BASE at the 24" line. But he was breaking the rules.

Therion wrote:The fact that you even brought up whether you would kick me out of your tournament or not was already enough of an insult for me to question why you would ever even consider such a thing in a case like this.

Well, then you weren't reading the thread closely, and flew off the handle because you misread what was written. I (twice) said a TO would not allow it. ArtfcllyFlvrd THEN said HE would throw you out of a tournament. And then I said I would NOT throw you out of a tournament, in response to that, and he retracted his statement. If you paid a little closer attention, you wouldn't embarass yourself by looking like a hothead.

Therion wrote:I stand by my statements (which were addressed to both of you collectively instead of just one person). Whether ArtfcllyFlvrd plays IG or not is largely irrelevant just like it's irrelevant that I don't play IG actively. To me it was obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced in this thread and anyone who disagreed with it was being labeled an immoral cheater.

Come on. You overreacted, plain and simple. You raised the subject that you don't personally play IG, to forestall accusations that you're arguing your position for personal advantage. And then YOU leveled charges that other people were arguing their position out of selfish and dishonest motives. A move which backfired when ArtfcllyFlvrd reminded you (he had already said it just prior to your making that foolish argument) that he personally DOES use Vendettas. Don't attack other people then accuse them of being aggressive.

To me it is obvious that any kind of modification of a model to gain a substantive game advantage is Modeling for Advantage, and a shady move. Whether modifying the model to do this is a necessity or whether it actually can be done without making physical alterations is still an open question, so your flying off the handle and claiming "it is obvious that a rule that doesn't exist was being enforced" is premature and silly. At least one poster (ArtfcllyFlvrd) who DOES own and regularly use the models is extremely incredulous about the possibility of doing it without altering the model or base.

Illumini wrote:The much worse issue with the vendetta is: Can stuff move under it's wings/can it move over other stuff...

The skimmer rules clearly state that it may not end its move over other units (which includes the wings and tail). Unfortunately, there is no prohibition on another unit moving under it.

Illumini wrote:... and if you allow both/either of these, what happens when it gets hit by a blast or a flamer?

It hits everything underneath the marker/template. Just as normal. The only exception to that is multi-level Ruins, which have a special rule.

I encourage you to re-read my posts and check whether I called anyone a cheater. I said a particular action would not fly with a TO. I didn't say the person who tried it is a bad person. Enhance your calm.

Already to begin with I'd suggest you to at once change your patronising tone especially if you are intent on giving other people advice on their skills in debate. Secondly I'd remind you I was talking to both of you simultaneously since you had taken the same aggressive stance and one of you was labeling me a cheater. I don't need to encourage you to re-read the thread, do I?

I'm sure people are bona fide and sincerely think they're playing by the rules while actually breaking said rules all the time. It happens frequently. It's called a mistake, or inadvertent cheating, rather than intentional.

In this case it's intentional allright. We all see the rules and what you're saying is there isn't there. Why it's bona fide is because if it wasn't for this thread I wouldn't have even thought about the possibility that someone could object to more angled Valkyries.

If you paid a little closer attention, you wouldn't embarass yourself by looking like a hothead.

This wouldn't even deserve a reply. More condemnation to people who defend the interpretation that the rulebook supports. It's not even a RAW vs RAI issue. You're simply making stuff up. You suggest that it is somehow outrageous and hotheaded to question the motives of TOs who either kick players while labeling them cheaters or just enforce a house rule on the spot, both without any clear reasoning given so far except your subjective opinion. The other TO goes further and vetoes simply because he thinks IG are good enough.

Come on. You overreacted, plain and simple. You raised the subject that you don't personally play IG, to forestall accusations that you're arguing your position for personal advantage.

I raised it in defence of your attempt to label me mr. shallow and mr. hateful and because of your suggestion that I have this opinion because I'm a WAAC player. You suggested I care more about winning or cadging a minor game advantage than I do about obeying the rules. After I questioned yours and your buddy's motives you decided to go personal and assume quite a lot. All of this you did without quoting a single rule that supports your stance and now you're very insulted and feel like you need to discuss who overreacted, who embarassed himself and who didn't? Please.

Valk Std Angle:


Valk, most extreme angle with some semblance of stability and no cutting.


Std Angle valk is just under 11" Tail to nose.

Extreme Angle is still just under 9.5"; this is because the bottom Tail Stabilizers stick out and any more of a downward angle would have the Valk fall off the Stand.

If it were glued you could have it Point at a 45* Angle, which would put your weapons out of a firing angle(it is a total 45* up/down per the BRB) and still have a 7.25" front-to-back length.

BTW, the "extreme angle shot still gives you a 20* from mount upward swivel to level, this means you can still shoot straight forward and ever so slightly above.

Seriously? I didn't label you as shallow or hateful. I addressed you as "Mr. 'shallow' and 'hate'" as a direct reference to your using those exact words to describe the motivations you were attributing to the other side. I was making you take responsibility for your words.

My post about "cadging a game advantage" was an obvious parody/rephrase of your accusatory and defamatory statement by making an identical echo of YOUR words in the reverse. I was obviously attempting to illustrate that it was a poor argument, and that you wouldn't like it if I argued that way, so you shouldn't either. And then I pointed out that that's what I was doing, and that it was hurtful, rude and inappropriate, in the very next line.

If you are incapable of recognizing rhetoric aimed at addressing and pointing out to you your own inappropriate language and aggressive phrasing, I don't know what to tell you.

I referenced the rules in question, and we are both very well aware of them. You can't modify the model or base for a game advantage. You publicly changed your stance between your first post in the thread (in which you said the modification would be "hardly" any modification at all) and your later ones (in which you changed your stance to claim that there would be no actual modification required; just an angled positioning on the stand).

I clearly stated that any actual modification of the model or base would be illegal, and agreed with you that it could be legit and legal if mounting the model at a sufficient angle could be managed without physical modification, and yet you continue to rant, and are unwilling or unable to let the matter rest while we await photographic or physical evidence.

Edit: Thanks to Kel, we now have the evidence I have been expecting. Without gluing it to the base, you cannot even come anywhere close to pulling this trick off. Even hard-gluing it at a 45 degree angle, you're still 7.25" long. It's not possible without physical modification, just as I suspected and as ArtfcllyFlvrd said.

I'm sure you were arguing your position sincerely. I'm sure you were honest and not intentionally advocating the breaking of a rule. But in point of fact you were advocating for an act which would actually be a violation of the rules. I like you. You're a tactical badass, who usually knows what he's talking about, and has an aggressive internet personality which can make it intimidating for some folks to argue with you. But you were mistaken on this and you got called on that mistake.

cool....

Since 2009, I been playing it that you can outflank and move 6 and fire all 3 las cannons as the reference point was the base for movement and this is how it was played against me by other guard players.

FAQ changes things a bit having to start on the board and scout turbo vendettas so they get cover or if you have to outflank in table corners missions you have to move > 6 and just fire one las cannon.

I heard a rumor they were giving the dark eldar move 12 and shoot rule to all the quote fliers with the summer of fliers expansion which would be rolled into 6th edition so outflanking and shooting might be still legal.