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.

So Battlewagon models are big enough to fit around 8 Meganob bases within its footprint if it explodes. If I were to scratch build a Battlewagon to have a bigger footprint than the standard size, would this be cheating?

I don't want to have my squad all set up and my opponent gets 2 extra kills because I can't place them.

Yes, it is cheating however if it looks cool, your opponent should be okay with it (in casual games). Just don't tell him why its bigger.

If you do a conversion to make something look better it's fine. If you do it to avoid a rule or gain an advantage then it's not.

SGTPozy wrote:
Yes, it is cheating however if it looks cool, your opponent should be okay with it (in casual games). Just don't tell him why its bigger.

So you're advising cheating AND lying to your opponent?

I'm advising hiding the true intention of the conversion; the opponent will think its a cool looking battlewagon, and the OP will have his benefits.

I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't not play against it.

SGTPozy,
Concealing that you are Modelling for Advantage is bad sportsmanship and should not be offered as advise in any forum.

You don't need to emergency disembark after an explosion, you place a crater and stick the models where it was (unless this is changed in 7th). The size of the vehicle has no impact unless you are so surrounded that you can't place models outwith 1" of an enemy (in which case they are destroyed).

Open topped vehicles never result in an emergency disembark (as I read it) since any part of the hull is an exit point.

The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.

If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.

Increasing the size of the wagon by length increases it's footprint and it's vulnerability to side armor attacks and would be in keeping (you're gaining an advantage but trading a disadvantage). Making the wagon stupidly wide instead would increase it's footprint and increase it's protection from the front armor value and would not be in keeping.

 GoonBandito wrote:
The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.

If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.

Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.

And the vehicle used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.

If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.

Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.

And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...

That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."

At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.

Textbook modeling for advantage. It'd be the definition of cheating.

I agree that it is is modeling for advantage and not good form.

I used a Land raider model to make my Battlewagon because it looks much better.

Its fine, and a non issue anyway as you don't have to physically be withing the footprint.

Even if you were, a surrounded battlewagon, the passengers automatically die as there is no space that is over 1" away from the sides to the disembarked models to be placed.

In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.

So if your battlewagon is different, you still play it like it was the real one, especially when it's a disadvantage.

morgoth wrote:
In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.

Is there a page number in therulebook you can provide to back this up? Personally if I were to wrongly try to enforce this I would at least use the current edition not the last edition.

I made a big ork fort with 3 segments on wheels each counting as a single battle wagon. The where a lot bigger than normal battle wagons but i did the following:

- Each segment/"battle wagon" got his own big base.
- then I put each segment on top of another flat base with a drawing of the exact battle wagon size. I can just lift the whole model and then you would see the actual placement of a normal battle wagon(and place it back on its original position).
- Then I brought a normal battlewagon so that I could put it on the template so that theirs no issue about the hight or anything.

I also let my opponent know that I would never claim any advantage with my conversion. For example: if an enemy unit wants to shoot it even when a normal size battle wagon would be completely out of line of sight, I let them. It's my conversion so no fooling around.

If its a friendly game then I would also not care about this but i brought this army to the dutch Grand Tournament and I want all my opponents to have a good feeling about playing against this army.

wtnind wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.

If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.

Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.

And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...

That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."

At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

morgoth wrote:
In order to avoid any discussion about modelling for an advantage, all models should be considered last edition, last base and static pose for all rules purposes.

Is there a page number in therulebook you can provide to back this up? Personally if I were to wrongly try to enforce this I would at least use the current edition not the last edition.

There is no page in the book, it's not a rule it's an expectation from the general community that you will not model for an advantage.

I gave you the best way to avoid such discussions in all conditions, if you don't like it don't use it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

wtnind wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
The rules don't say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle at all. They just say you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be, and in coherency. They then take a Pinning Check.

If you can't place the models because of impassable terrain or other units, then you would remove those models as casualties.

Umm yes the rules say you have to place the unit in the footprint of the exploded vehicle. Because they say that you have to place the unit where the vehicle used to be.

And it used to be in the footprint of where it exploded...

That's quite a reach. It says:
"Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."

At the very least, this lets you place passengers touching the edge of the footprint as well because so long as at least part of their base is overlapping the location where the vehicle was, the model (passenger) can be said to be "where the vehicle used to be". That should get let you place almost any squad size.

If the model is not where the vehicle used to be, like when a part of that models base is just touching the edge of the footprint, then how can you claim to have followed that rule if you have most of the model not where the vehicle used to be?

By the same way range is measured to the closest part of the base, not the entire base, if any part of the base is in range then the model is in range. If 1mm of the models base is where the tank used to be then the model fufils the rules requirements for being where the vehicle used to be used to be.

You assert that majority of the base must be within footprint before the model is considered to "be where the vehicle used to be". I cant see any precedent for that.

Take a pin, place it in a location, answer "was the vehicle here before it exploded? Is the passenger here now?" Answer yes? Then that passenger is placed where the vehicle used to be.

Except you are not measuring range when the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

Therefore the part about measuring range between units does not apply (Also the vehicle is no longer a unit since it is exploded).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you are not measuring range when the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

Therefore the part about measuring range between units does not apply (Also the vehicle is no longer a unit since it is exploded).

You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as).

If you want absolute literal definition of "where the vehicle used to be" I can place my squad where I original deployed the vehicle right? It used to be there before I moved it on turn 1.

I believe you have 3 inches from the hull on an explodes result anyway so placing them wont be that hard..

broo wrote:
I believe you have 3 inches from the hull on an explodes result anyway so placing them wont be that hard..

Incorrect, the passengers need to be placed where the vehicle used to be.

wtnind wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you are not measuring range when the "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

Therefore the part about measuring range between units does not apply (Also the vehicle is no longer a unit since it is exploded).

You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as).

If you want absolute literal definition of "where the vehicle used to be" I can place my squad where I original deployed the vehicle right? It used to be there before I moved it on turn 1.

I have mentioned the rule, it says "Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..." (Vehicles Chapter, Effect of damage on passengers section).

This rule is talking about placing the passengers where the vehicle used to be when the vehicle exploded. It is like context is important.

Here is a diagram, Passengers #1 and #2 are placed where the vehicle used to be, but clearly #3 is not placed where the vehicle used to be because the red area is clearly not where the vehicle used to be, and as such #3 is in violation of the rule, because part of its base is not where the vehicle used to be.

It is a Yes or No question. If Yes then the passenger is following the rule. If No the passenger is not following the rule. #1 and #2 are Yes they are placed where the vehicle used to be. #3 is No he is not placed where the vehicle used to be, since the vehicle did not explode in the red area.

You have not mentioned a rule in which majority of base (overlapping) is a requirement to fulfil (being in the same place as). Incidentally you are now asserting that the ENTIRE base has to be within it, which is a change from your original post (which mentioned majority).

Here is a question, "If 2 models overlap, are they occupying the same space?"

The answer is partly.

Does the rule say "Partly in the same place" ?

No it doesn't.

Then it's fully in the same place by default.

This is where modeling for advantage gets really weird, in my opinion.

The OP has stated that he is modeling for advantage.

I don't think that he needs to, but that's a separate issue (addressed below **).

However, what if someone just made a bigger battlewagon? There have been loads of them posted here on Dakka. Since those bigger battlewagons could take advantage of this bigger base, why aren't they modeling for advantage? If the creator of a bigger battlewagon didn't think of this advantage, but someone points it out to him, is he obligated to shave down the base, or be modeling for advantage now?

What if the OP decides that doing this is MFA, and decides not to do it. Then, the modeling bug hits him and he makes a bigger battlewagon anyway, because the conversion just turns out that big. He's not modeling for advantage now, but he had thought of it before, so is it still MFA?

What if you buy a bigger battlewagon off eBay? How do you know what the intention of the original modeler was? Were they MFA, or just being creative? How does your opponent know what your intentions are?

I think that any rule that requires you to divine the past intentions of someone who might not even be playing is fundamentally stupid. Either the players should be able to come to some agreement on what's an acceptable model, or the rules should tell them. Given that we have a game which uses True Line of Sight (and not any rules abstractions), I think that the onus is going to be on the players, but it can't be based on your 'intent' during modeling. It needs to be based on an appraisal of the actual model during the game--not any 'intention' held during creation.



**This is just how I would play it, but I wouldn't understand the rules to require models be killed in every possible emergency disembarkation. That is to say, I would assume that any unit which could legally fit IN a transport should be understood to be able to be legally disembarked from it in an emergency. If X number of Meganobs can be transported in a Battlewagon, then X Meganobs should be able to disembark in an emergency without dying--unless outside restrictions like enemy models or terrain/buildings/vehicles prevent it.

The deaths might result from other models or other terrain preventing the nobs from disembarking, but not the restrictive perimeter of the transport base itself.

If, for example, the Battlewagon was hit on an open plain, away from any enemies, forcing the Meganobs to disembark into the ruins of the model, why would they be removed? What was obstructing their emergency disembarkation? The fact that the outline of the model can't accommodate them all seems like a bogus restriction, as they couldn't fit onto the model either, but they were all allowed there.

That's certainly outside the rules, but the rules don't spell out in this case whether the models have to be placed ENTIRELY within the outline of the model, or simply placed with a portion of their base within the outline of the model. The most restrictive reading of the rules would indicate that they must be entirely within the outline of the model, but if someone is reading the rules that strictly, you might suggest that they need a wire frame outline prepared for all of their transports, so that we can be sure of the exact dimensions of each one.

Modelling for an advantage is not an activity, it's a concept.

Arguably, anything but the standard model in a static pose could be modelling for an advantage.

Some advantages may not be obvious, some may not even be real.

One thing is sure: the latest model on its provided base in a static pose cannot possibly be wrong.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Butcha wrote:
The most restrictive reading of the rules would indicate that they must be entirely within the outline of the model, but if someone is reading the rules that strictly, you might suggest that they need a wire frame outline prepared for all of their transports, so that we can be sure of the exact dimensions of each one.

I just place dice around the areas not already delimited by charging models. It's really easy to play by the rules you know

morgoth wrote:
The answer is partly.

Does the rule say "Partly in the same place" ?

No it doesn't.

Then it's fully in the same place by default.

Well just have to disagree on that one then, to me if you are overlapping you are way beyond even base to base and that for me would fully justify being in the place where the vehicle was.

Page 108 says you are 'in' terrain if any part of the base is overlapping it. If the vehicle was wrecked and a model moved so its base was half over the wreckage then it would be 'in the wreckage' I cant see any reason why overlapping the footprint doesn't legally satisfy the requirements quoted above.

Someone should take a Rhino, take 10 tactical marines, and try to place them "fully within the base of the exploded vehicle". If you can, then modeling for advantage shouldn't be allowed. If you can't, then the rules imply that the bases should be placed in the shadow of the vehicle, but don't have to be fully within.