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.

nkelsch wrote:


Buying 3rd party counts as grots, custom ADLs and using ammo grots or grot riggers for proxies to gain the ability to see where no one anywhere can achieve that rule change is being TFG.

Mind pointing me to the page in the rulebook which shows which gretchin are allowed to be fielded with an ADL and which ones are not? I must have a misprint as i can not find that reference page. I have some really old Grots that can see over an ADL and guess what their tab says? "Gretchin". If using an unmodified GW model for it's intended purpose makes someone TfG then th,at applies to just about everyone here doesn't it?

It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.

The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.


That being said, this is a hardline approach that is usually more a response to the same old 'But if I use a taller grot I can see over it' argument than an actual indication of how people play the game. Being unreasonable about modelling works both ways... while it's reasonable to expect that you should be able to use whichever Gretchin you choose as your Gun crew, on the basis that they're all Gretchin, it's also reasonable for your opponent to object if you are doing so solely because those specific models allow you to see over something that the gun crew couldn't normally see over.

It's a mess created by TLOS. Without TLOS, or with TLOS that included strict guidelines on appropriate model use, this wouldn't even be a discussion. Instead, it's something that winds up getting argued back and forth every edition.

Guys, they used to give you blueprints for building your own models in their magazine. I think we all need to remember that when talking about stuff like this, and this is probably something new players should know too.

It all used to just be paper and imagination.

I think it's fairly safe to say that without that driving spirit behind the game things like DakkaDakka would not exist. After all, we're all here because we like to paint and cut and glue right? The hobby sure seems to have come a long way, but I sense that perhaps it's starting to bloat a little bit, perhaps like the very Imperium itself? Wouldn't that be ironic.

I know this thread is about TLoS and here I am blathering on, but when things start taking a bad turn someone has to say something! Sure the rules say one thing and logic often says another but when we start having it out about customizing your models and crying things like MFA or whatever that just cuts it for me. I mean what are ya gonna do IRL? Have an argument for 20 minutes? Especially since we're talking about a piddly unit firing one zapping weapon!

I didn't get into this to argue about how I glue my toys together, as I'm sure the OP didn't either, and if this is how Mini Wargaming is well then maybe I'll just paint the damn things and collect em like stamps. Stamps made out of paper.

Modeling to have a cool model is one thing. Modeling to gain an advantage in the game is another. Most people don't think MFA is acceptable in my experiences.

the players call putting standing guardsmen on a HWT "modeling for advantage" because the "official" heavy weapons teams that come in the heavy weapons team box set are all crouching. To use any others in their eyes is MFA because that isn't "how they come" I think that's a crock, especially as im giving myself more disadvantages than advantages but hey, whatcha gonna do.
My queston to these guys is this if you had the opportunity to play against Andy Chambers or John Blanche or Rick priestleyor any of the other big names, would you refuse to play them because they have converted their models to the point where they stand taller than the 'base' model?

darkcloak wrote:
. I mean what are ya gonna do IRL? Have an argument for 20 minutes?

That's pretty much exactly why we have threads like this here - so you don't wind up having the argument at the table, because you already know what to expect.



The thing is, as much as GW promote (or did, up until the start of 6th edition) modelling in the hobby, their rules have never really sufficiently addressed how modelling choices affect the game. And so we get discussions like this one, where some players feel that anything is fair game, and others feel that when you alter or scratch-build a model, you need to consider how that will impact on the model's function within the game.

The key to happy gaming is knowing where you stand, and finding opponents with a similar approach to the game.

I don't remember who it was but I will quote them (re: paraphrase badly) anyway:

"Ask yourself this:

Am I modeling, modifying, or substituting a model purely and simply because it looks good to me and fits my army? Or am I doing it to gain a tactical or in-game advantage, however slight, over using the original model?

Modeling for advantage is very easy to determine. The hard part is figuring out if you're lying to yourself."

Personally, if someone wants to MFA, that's fair enough but at least be honest about it. At least then I'll still respect you as a person, if not as a player.

DoW

What about 2nd edition Gretchen? It are more bigger than new Gretchen. I still have 40 of this model.
http://coolminiornot.org/6426

It should able to see over the lower level of ADL!

( ah. Someone already said that.. Didn't reloading a page, whoops.)

But I still want answer that how come both Gretchen have differ rule?!

 insaniak wrote:
It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.

The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.

And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?

Solidcrash wrote:
But I still want answer that how come both Gretchen have differ rule?!

Because GW has decided that they do.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?

No, because by doing so you aren't giving yourself an advantage. For example, using a Devastator with a heavy bolter as a Havoc or CSM Troop with a Heavy Bolter is fine. It's not the right model per se, but it is perfectly WYSIWYG. However, were I to give my Havocs the legs of Raptors (which are taller), I would be significantly altering the model to the point where they would be able to see over walls and the like that they would otherwise not be able to. This would be modeling for advantage, while modeling the Riptide (as it is quite a pose-able model) to be standing to its maximum height or crouching as low as possible (which could be done for 'MFA' reasons) wouldn't be an issue. Altering a Trygon to have a lower profile would be.

EDIT: This means that I would (albeit begrudgingly) accept it if my opponent rejected my Raptors because most of them use Assault Marine running legs. Or rather, I would be content with treating them as appropriately taller models for purposes of LOS and cover.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not so much a matter of which gretchin can be used with the ADL, as which gretchin can be used as Gun crew.

The rules don't really go into detail on this sort of thing... there is just a general assumption that you are supposed to use the correct model for a given unit. So the only Gretchin that you technically should use for Gun crew are those that come with the Gun.

And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?

According to the extreme MFA players, it would be illegal. The only way t you could do it and not give them a reason (however farfetched) would be to buy a completely extra set of big gunz and use the actual grot crew that comes with it as your extra crewmen. Every player I know wouldn't make you do that (I know I would not), but an extreme mfa person would.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
And lets say I spend the points to add extra grots for my Big Gunnz battery. There is no blister labeled "extra grot crew". Are you saying it is illegal to add crew even thought the dex allows it since GW doesn't sell extra crew?

Why would 'extra crew' be any different to the regular crew? They're all just big gun crew.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
According to the extreme MFA players, it would be illegal. The only way t you could do it and not give them a reason (however farfetched) would be to buy a completely extra set of big gunz and use the actual grot crew that comes with it as your extra crewmen. Every player I know wouldn't make you do that (I know I would not), but an extreme mfa person would.

You're confusing a discussion of the technicalities of the rules with how people actually play the game.

Massively exaggerating in your classic way I see, EVIL INC. While I agree that disallowing manning the Quad Gun (it's such a minor and situational thing, really, I don't care) is kind of silly, it would and should not be allowed in serious games. And, once again, you are completely missing all the points people have made.

 DogOfWar wrote:
I don't remember who it was but I will quote them (re: paraphrase badly) anyway:

"Ask yourself this:

Am I modeling, modifying, or substituting a model purely and simply because it looks good to me and fits my army? Or am I doing it to gain a tactical or in-game advantage, however slight, over using the original model?

Modeling for advantage is very easy to determine. The hard part is figuring out if you're lying to yourself."

Adding Big Gunz crew using grot models for the specific purpose of increasing the squad size is not MFA. Nor is modeling a Devastator's heavy bolter and backpack on a Tactical Marine, or putting Assault Marine running legs on Tactical Marines.

I am about to use the daemonic skulls that come with the Khorne Lord of Skulls (bought from a bitz site, I didn't actually buy that awful thing) for power armour helmets. Why am I doing this? Because the daemonic heads will give these models a specific mechanical advantage in the game? Then I'm modeling for advantage.

How about I take my Pathfinders and mount them all on very tall rocks or trees, so they can see above everyone's cover? How about I model a Carnifex to be extraordinarily tall, for the purpose of shooting over cover? Or, like in someone's previous example, how about I model my Dreadnoughts to be a bit taller, or have their guns on top, so they can shoot over Rhinos? MFA.

Using a Chaos Chosen with Lightning Claws from Dark Vengeance as, say, an Aspiring Champion with Lightning Claws? Not MFA.

Modeling all of my Firewarriors to be kneeling so that they are totally obscured behind the Aegis Defense Line? MFA.

Adding Big Gunz crew that are Gretchin but not actually from the Big Gunz set is not modeling for advantage unless you are specifically modeling them for an advantage. Like modeling all of them on the back of an Ork Boy specifically to allow them to shoot over cover, or something.

2nd edition plastic grots cannot see over the stock ADL. There is not a single gw 40k grot model which has an eyeline over 1". Including gorka morka headhoncho and red gobo.

You have to give scenic bases for them to see over, or use 3rd party models or other non-40k goblins as counts as. And you fail rule of cool and are MFA.

If you want to use a Gretchen as a big guns crew, then as long as the models are interacting with the rules roughly the same, so be it. If the model swap suddenly grants an advantage which you wouldn't normally have and change the rules, then no.

If you are trying to justify grots having the right to shoot over an ADL, then you are the problem. Any modifications to models to make it happen is going to cause issues. Why would anyone want to rely on a tactic which no one else anywhere can do and is tantamount to cheating? Maybe figure out a different way to use grots?

nkelsch wrote:

You have to give scenic bases for them to see over, or use 3rd party models or other non-40k goblins as counts as. And you fail rule of cool and are MFA.

If you want to use a Gretchen as a big guns crew, then as long as the models are interacting with the rules roughly the same, so be it. If the model swap suddenly grants an advantage which you wouldn't normally have and change the rules, then no.

Exactly this.

EDIT: Oh, and this.

nkelsch wrote:

If you are trying to justify grots having the right to shoot over an ADL, then you are the problem. Any modifications to models to make it happen is going to cause issues. Why would anyone want to rely on a tactic which no one else anywhere can do and is tantamount to cheating? Maybe figure out a different way to use grots?

The peeking out strategy is a perfectly viable method of doing so without breaking any rules or doing any kind of trickery, too!

I was just pointing out the double standard. In myview, if yourgoing to be WAAC absolutely no models to be altered in any way or no models used that was not specifically designed for that use, you should use the same standard across the board. Saying "You cant ue the guardsman with standing legs on a heavy weapons team because it lets the team see what a "normal guardsman sees" or you cant use that grot you converted back in 2nd edition to look cool stomping on a marine helmet because it lets him see over an ADL when grots are designed to not be ble to see oer it" sets you up for a double standard that is rather hypocritical if you are then perfectly fine with using taller 2nd edition plastic grots as extra crew members.
It is my opinion that if you take that hardline of a view, you should be consistant with i.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I was just pointing out the double standard. In myview, if yourgoing to be WAAC absolutely no models to be altered in any way or no models used that was not specifically designed for that use, ...

So you're complaining about a hypothetical situation that nobody in this thread was actually endorsing.

Nobody is insisting that you should only use stock standard models. What they are saying is that using conversions or different models for the sole purpose of giving yourself an in-game advantage is inappropriate.

Insaniak, I think you don't have much experience with EVIL INC. He tends to turn all other opinions into straw and back up his own wild beliefs with "I am right because I said so". Trust me, you'll get nowhere by pointing out the flaws in his logic.

my point is that pretty much ANY conversion could be considered to give an advantage of some kind. This could range from having a bike popping a wheelie to a grot standing on and stomping a marine helmet to my old Tzeentch chaos lord on disc flying over a oss grown boulder with dead guardsmen around it. it could also range from the kneeling wraithlord to the punisher russ having an 8 incher barrel to any other of the more obvious choices.

uh, frozen Oceon, don't insult me without cause or reason (see the link to the forum rules in my sig) I am only putting forth MY opinion and I may be right or wrong or somewhere in between. I don't really care so long as you treat me and my opinion with the same respect and dignity that I do you and yours.

anyway, you might want to field an older model (My chaos army was mostly old RTB01 with chaos backpacks)because they simply cant afford to go out and buy new ones and if someone wanted to be a jerk, they could accuse the player of using the older models for advantage. likewise, they could claim that I put my lord up that high flying over the boulder to give him an advantage of sight while in actuality, I did it because I thought it would look really cool and wanted to experiment with putting the flight stand through the boulder before painting it. even me modeling my guard issile launchers onto standing bodies, someone could throw a fit about while in actuality, it was to save models and get more bang for my buck.

What I am trying to say is that MOST situations, common sense and good sportsmanship will win out. however, we need to be prepared for extreme radical case that MAY arise (which hopefully it never will). This is why when I give examples, I give extreme "never hppen" examples because even though we may believe it will never happen, you know as well as I that somewhere, sometime, it will when someone least expects it. That is why I play the devils advocate.
Like I said, I don't care if your grots can shoot over it or not. To meit is only a game and not worth an argument.

I have plenty cause and reason.

You ignore what was said above. Are you modeling it because it is cool? Fine. Are you modeling it because you want it to see over cover/do something it wasn't able to do before? Not fine.

Using taller Grots specifically to allow them to see over cover and therefore use the Quad Gun is MFA, just as it would be to have a Dreadnought on a rock base so it could see over Rhinos. Doing something because it looks cool is not MFA. As said above, the trick is working out if you're lying to yourself.

For example, there are plenty of cool Heldrake conversions, some of which may or may not give them a greater wingspan. If the conversion was for the specific purpose of giving them a greater wingspan (which allows for more Vector Striking), it is MFA. If it was for purposes of conversion and it just so happens to give it a greater wingspan, it is subject to rule of cool - you must agree with your opponent what to do with the matter. Generally a good conversion made for its own sake will stand out (as opposed to a Heldrake with a pair of Valkyrie wings stuck on to its own for no reason). Good example. It's easy to tell that the conversion was made to make the model look more Nurgley.

In the case of your grot on top of a helmet, it would have to be agreed as to whether or not it would be allowed to man the Quad Gun. Most people wouldn't care, especially not in a casual game. But in a tournament or other super-competitive setting, it would be considered MFA and they would be reasonably allowed to reject it on that basis. That's the point we're trying to make, here. Most people won't reject it - but if they do, they're perfectly allowed to as per the rules.

Anyway, even if you disagree with someone, please make sure to keep the argument to the technical issues, and not make it ad hominem.

Rule no.1.

Thank you.

Ah this is when it becomes too competitive for what it is. If that is the case then all basing that has nay osrt of slate or cork with the models standing on should really not be used.

I don't agree.

If I was playing somebody who had grots behind an ADL, I would just let them fire. If I have to be that anal about the rules to win, or to feel like I am winning, then I wouldn't want to play.

Its just a little bit of imagination and common sense. Of course it can be take too far, and there will be examples of that. But if a grot cant fire over an adl line then the world has actually gone mad.

I was at our Astronomicon tournament in March this year. My 4th game was my first loss so I got paired up with an Eldar player for my 5th game.

He brought out his army and was a super nice guy, he gave me a large dice as a gift and game turn counter. Anyways. He brought out his WrathKnight and immediately started to tell me his fluff behind the model and how it was posed in this dramatic fighting scene as it had killed a Demon Prince.

Long story short the model was beautiful, and it has a great story behind why he posed it, kinda bending over. Then he placed his army and because of the pose the model was out of TLOS from my SwarmLord.

I started filling out the score sheet and extended my hand to my opponent. In shock he asked what I was doing. I explained he was MFA and because he cheated I'd be giving him a low sportsmanship score as well as taking a full 10 points for the win.

This was a 30 player tournament and a couple guys on either side started to pay attention. I had just finished the score sheet when the TO arrived. We explained the situation, and I calmly handed the score sheet to him.

I never saw the blow coming, the TO slapped the back of my head, told me to stop being a, and I quote "Nancy" and walked away. By this point the whole tournament was paying attention and now amongst our local gaming group I'm known as "Nancy".

Don't be a Nancy.

Also before your game just discuss with your opponent you like to say the gross orcs can see over the ADL and shoot the quad gun. In turn they can be shot at as normal with the 4up cover save.

Christopher300 wrote:
But if a grot cant fire over an adl line then the world has actually gone mad.

This comment puzzles me. What exactly is so crazy about a model not being able to shoot over an obstacle that is taller than the model itself?

Stormbreed wrote:
I never saw the blow coming, the TO slapped the back of my head, told me to stop being a, and I quote "Nancy" and walked away. By this point the whole tournament was paying attention and now amongst our local gaming group I'm known as "Nancy".

Don't be a Nancy.

Yeah, I personally would have zero problem with just letting the grots see over the wall in a friendly game with my friends. Concentrating on that sort of minutiae is totally unfun. However, I would absolutely refuse to play someone who glued tall rocks onto their bases for that purpose. Intent really is a big part of it.

Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.

Christopher300 wrote:
Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.

Ah ok. So the argument is that following the LOS rules is just too much bother?

LOS is pivotal to almost every aspect of the game in this edition. That's hardly what I would call 'trivial'

Depends how you view the game really. And yes I like a competitive tournament game but I still think it should be fun and not trivialised. And yes I think a grot model being able to see over the wall or a kneeling guardsman, is pretty trivial. Yes LOS is very important, and it is a rule, and obviously if a model can not see through the building, it cant shoot. (although I have my own opinions on ruins - separate discussion I guess).

Spirit of the game i as important as any rules, even for competitive play.

But where do you draw the line? If there's a small hill the same height as an ADL can he see over that too? What about a Marine - can he see over something as tall as he is?

There's an easy place to arbitrarily draw a line - and that's what's actually modeled.