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.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

To get it to pitch back also requires precarious balancing. It would be ok for a photo, but you couldn't really move the model around and play a game like that.

I am going to take it at face value that pitch back is legal if you can balance it. Since it is legal to have it pitch back, so you can glue it in place then? Will that not solve your problem and have a legal pitch back model.

tyllon wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

To get it to pitch back also requires precarious balancing. It would be ok for a photo, but you couldn't really move the model around and play a game like that.

I am going to take it at face value that pitch back is legal if you can balance it. Since it is legal to have it pitch back, so you can glue it in place then? Will that not solve your problem and have a legal pitch back model.

You could also glue all the pieces into a mashed together lump. Or you could put the model pieces into a grinder, grind the plastic to dust and just layer it onto the base with glue until you've created the world's lowest profile Heldrake. It would still be a 100% pure Citadel model - no 3rd party parts! Just because you can do a thing doesn't make it legal or sportsmanlike.

Heck, if you did that you'd essentially have a 360 fire arc as the mouth would be literally all over the base!

rigeld2 wrote:
Heck, if you did that you'd essentially have a 360 fire arc as the mouth would be literally all over the base!

Maybe I'll just do this with all my models from now on. They'll certainly be easier to paint.

I think I saw some Genestealers done up this way. Made them look like they were pulling themselves out of the ground.

I truly don't understand how this has gone on for so long. To clarify, what is RAW on how to construct your model?

There is a book supplied with each model giving step-by-step instructions on how to construct the model. There is some leeway in the situations where there are say, ball-and-socket joints, and things of that ilk where the pose is less-defined. However, most pieces literally just fit together in an exact place.

For the flyer issue, they're basically all the same. You put the base inside of the flyer's hull. It literally just fits. Some flyers, like the heldrake, are naturally pitched to the left or to the right. Most are not.

Modeled for advantage means changing the model in any way, which results in a different interaction with the rule set. The base is a part of the model.

You are free to model your miniatures however you like, and I regularly alter the poses and positions of my models quite significantly because they look cool.

However, whenever you go to a tournament, expect to hear the following sentence, or some variant thereof:

"in any situation where a model is different in some way from the standard construction which causes a benefit to be gained by the owning player that would not be gained if it was modeled appropriately, that benefit is not gained.

In any situation where different modeling causes the owning player to gain a disadvantage, that disadvantage must be accepted."

In short, you get no advantages and all of the disadvantages. It's really not hard. If you're going to have an awesome conversion, go for it! But just realize that in a competiitve setting, (and really probably in any game) you're actually modeling for DISADVANTAGE only. If that's worth the sweet conversion, then go for it! I model for disadvantage all the time and encourage anyone to do the same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
I think I saw some Genestealers done up this way. Made them look like they were pulling themselves out of the ground.

FYI these are the best kinds of Genestealers. They are from the space hulk set, though I'm sure that some people have modeled theirs that way as well. I've seen some Mawlocs like that as well

 Kriswall wrote:

tyllon wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not used as an example of anything. Its just a dramatic picture in the codex. What it shows has no bearing o the rules at all.

I asked a simple question, to have someone confirm the assembly of the Razorshark in this picture and if it could be assembled this way without modification.

From what I can gather, you believe that the way Games Workshop assembled their model is incorrect and that they break a rule. Since you are so adamant about a rule I can't find, please specify the rule, back up your claim that there is a rule the image I asked about is misrepresenting.

The only rule I have found relating to modeling is found in "Forge a Narrative" excerpt in the BRB about basing and recommending to use the correct size base of similar models if you don't have a base.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 Nilok wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
When has GW ever let a little thing like the rules get in the way of a photograph that "forges the narrative"?

Do you have the actual model so you can answer my question?

You can't really "Forge a Narrative" away some rules without the rules to begin with.
Ironic, however, that most players follow the "Forge a Narrative" recommendations found in the BRB anyways.

I have the model. Fully seated, it only fits "flat" on the flying stand. To get it to pitch forward like that requires a very precarious balancing.

Thank you, the one I'm looking at is actually pitching back, but good to know.

To get it to pitch back also requires precarious balancing. It would be ok for a photo, but you couldn't really move the model around and play a game like that.

I am going to take it at face value that pitch back is legal if you can balance it. Since it is legal to have it pitch back, so you can glue it in place then? Will that not solve your problem and have a legal pitch back model.

You could also glue all the pieces into a mashed together lump. Or you could put the model pieces into a grinder, grind the plastic to dust and just layer it onto the base with glue until you've created the world's lowest profile Heldrake. It would still be a 100% pure Citadel model - no 3rd party parts! Just because you can do a thing doesn't make it legal or sportsmanlike.

i am only talking about the legally pitch back stand as you stated before, aka the gw picture. if you glue the model like gw pic then you can play the game with the pitch back model. stormwolf pitch some if you put the model backward on the stand. Maybe just some bad assembly on my part.

The storm wolf is able to sit fully in its base like that in the pose. I'm not familiar with the tau flyer but it's really simple. You stick the model into the base. All the way. If it fits, it's the right way. I feel like a PE teacher here...

 luke1705 wrote:
The storm wolf is able to sit fully in its base like that in the pose. I'm not familiar with the tau flyer but it's really simple. You stick the model into the base. All the way. If it fits, it's the right way. I feel like a PE teacher here...

just turn the stormwolf around and sit it fully in the stand. you will see a pitch down.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Gottloser wrote:
As a Necron player I´ll never have that problem myself - my fliers can´t hover.

But for my opponents... honestly, if you have a flier and you hover above an objective I don´t care if your base is 4" or 15" high... you score.

May not be what is RAW, but it´s the way I propose to my opponents, because I think that´s what is intended.

This. HIWPI, and most people I've played with as well, the objective marker extends upwards ad infinitum, if you're within 3" of it horizontally, you've got it. The way I see it, an objective marker shows an area of the battlefield that is important, and the 3" just determines if you're close enough to control it, but whether that's boots on the ground or controlling the airspace is irrelevant. But that's just HIWPI.

This works for flyers, but my issue is with consistency and would you allow a unit on top of a 2 or 3 story ruin control an objective on the bottom of the ruin? The unit may be within 3 inches horizontally but 6+ inches away vertically. I think the best HIWPI is when placing objectives to place one on a hill or upper level of ruins so your flyer could possibly score it later on.

Yeah, I would let them score. I know, this is not Realhammer 40k but Warhammer 40k - but if a squad of Soldiers sits on level 2 of a building with firing positions and noone else is in the building, they do control the building. If a squad of enemy soldiers enter the ground floor - the building is contestet. And that´s how my group plays it in 40k, too. You´re in the building, you have the objective unless another group comes in, regardless of the level you´re at.

I have to say, though, that I am not a tournament player and this may well count as a house rule, seeing the discussion that is going on. But nonetheless, we´re all happy with this ruling, since it makes sense to all of us.

 BlackTalos wrote:
But i would say the assembly instructions for the model should leave no second guessing...

Except that the assembly instructions for the model are not actually rules.

But the rules don't allow you to paint your models either so it is a slippery slope.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But i would say the assembly instructions for the model should leave no second guessing...

Except that the assembly instructions for the model are not actually rules.

But the rules don't allow you to paint your models either so it is a slippery slope.

I agree for the assembly instruction, but not for painting. Painting your models is RaW (as per the Codex) quotes above if you need them.
Those pictures don't show a flight stand (in the Tau Codex) so i'd say it is "unknown" territory completely...

 BlackTalos wrote:
Painting your models is RaW (as per the Codex) quotes above if you need them.

Sorry, couldn't find anything that mandates painting my models. Can you please give me a page reference or quote?

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Painting your models is RaW (as per the Codex) quotes above if you need them.

Sorry, couldn't find anything that mandates painting my models. Can you please give me a page reference or quote?

There is no requirement in any rulebook telling you that you have to paint your models. Sure, the Codex gives EXAMPLES... which are all painted, but EXAMPLES represent a subset of all possible options. Unpainted models are perfectly acceptable. GW simply chose not to display them as options. I'm guessing because grey plastic on your mom's kitchen table makes for a pretty bad marketing photo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think modeling for advantage is kind of like excessive naughtiness in films. It's hard to define in general, but easy to identify in specific instances. To quote a Supreme Court Justice...

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

In other words, modeling for advantage might be best left to specific games between two players and officiated events. The players and judges will know it when they see it. Making a broad definition is almost impossible as the line between cool conversion and modeling for advantage conversion is very slim.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Painting your models is RaW (as per the Codex) quotes above if you need them.

Sorry, couldn't find anything that mandates painting my models. Can you please give me a page reference or quote?

There is no requirement in any rulebook telling you that you have to paint your models. Sure, the Codex gives EXAMPLES... which are all painted, but EXAMPLES represent a subset of all possible options. Unpainted models are perfectly acceptable. GW simply chose not to display them as options. I'm guessing because grey plastic on your mom's kitchen table makes for a pretty bad marketing photo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think modeling for advantage is kind of like excessive naughtiness in films. It's hard to define in general, but easy to identify in specific instances. To quote a Supreme Court Justice...

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

In other words, modeling for advantage might be best left to specific games between two players and officiated events. The players and judges will know it when they see it. Making a broad definition is almost impossible as the line between cool conversion and modeling for advantage conversion is very slim.

It is very much a philosophical existential question... But we can agree that the BrB refers to "models".
Then we have this RaW, possibly different in some codices:

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.

That is the only RaW i can find on the subject. If you think there is more, please use RaW to answer this:

The BrB refers to "models" (hope i don't need quotes for this). What is a "model" ?

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.

To summarize...

1. There is no requirement in the rule book to assemble your models using the instructions provided or that they be painted. The rule books provide examples of assembled and painted models, but do not provide a comprehensive list or gallery of acceptable models.

2. Deviating from the instructions provided with a model can grant in game advantage. This is typically referred to as modeling for advantage. Some people require an element of intent to be present for a conversion that has in game impact to be labelled as modeling for advantage. Others don't require any intent. As such, the criteria for what constitutes modeling for advantage will vary between players. The core rules have nothing to say about modeling for advantage.

3. Modeling for advantage is almost universally frowned upon. It is generally considered to be unsportsmanlike behavior. If you deviate from the provided instructions when assembling your models, you should be prepared for some players to have issues when playing you. These issues can range from mild annoyance to an outright refusal to play you based on how extreme the deviation is. You should also be prepared for some organized play events (e.g., tournaments) to refuse to let you play with your converted models.

4. Modelling for advantage can be totally overlooked in the presence of the Rule of Cool. The Rule of Cool states that if your conversion is cool enough and sports an awesome paint job, people are likely to overlook any modeling for advantage elements and grant you far more leeway than they would to a poorly assembled and unpainted model.

Lastly...

5. Assembling your models per the included instructions avoids all of the issues mentioned in this thread. No tournament or player will turn you away for having your models assembled per the standard assembly instructions. If you are likely to play against strangers, or in organized play events, it is to your direct advantage not to convert your models. If you only play with a limited number of people, simply talk to them and formalize some house rules surrounding how specific conversions will be handled.

You'll note that at no point did I discuss what in game advantage is actually gained. It's irrelevant. If you deviate from the included instructions, some people will take issue. They are completely within their right to do so just as you are completely within your right to assemble your models however you want.

HIWPI... I love conversions, but always play them as though I had the stock model. I would never knowingly claim an in game advantage from a model I had converted. I also rely heavily on "Rule of Cool". I'll allow just about anything if the conversion is well assembled, painted AND the player is friendly. If the model is poorly assembled, unpainted or the player is a competitive jerk... well, I'll politely ask before the game that we pretend the model is stock for game purposes.