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.

Hi all,
just thought I'd bring up a topic that I suspect will come up a fair bit in the next few months given the new trend of models coming with their own chunk of scenery that they stand on.
Example:

Add to this the new Drahzar model as well.

What are people thought as far as the rules are concerned in regards to the legality of removing the model from their portable terrain?

lets say I think the shrike model would look alot better if he wasn't standing on a giant grey wall and I really dislike the look of a piece of masonry moving around the battlefield. So I don't use it and just model him standing on a base, would this be considered modelling for advantage as he is then well below the height of his official model?

I think it comes down to whether the wall is considered part of the model or part of the base, there are no real rules governing the base other than use something appropriate. Also consider that without the wall he is still alot bigger than his old model and there is nothing against you using that model as discussed in a previous thread.

Obviously intent is impossible to know but I suspect the base terrain hasn't been added for any intended game effect but to just give the model look more impressive make the kit larger thus justifying its monetary cost more.

 WisdomLS wrote:

What are people thought as far as the rules are concerned in regards to the legality of removing the model from their portable terrain?

There are no official rules how a base has to look, not even on base sizes. You can do what you want. But consider removing the wall might be considered modelling for advantage, to make the model smaller.

 p5freak wrote:
But consider removing the wall might be considered modelling for advantage, to make the model smaller.

It might, but is the figure the model in "MFA"? Should the scenery be optional, and MFA be based on head-to-ties for most models?
I would consider taking the scenery away as an improvement for gaming purposes.
Especially if said model is placed on a building or such? It would then be a figure standing on a building, on a building.

But, that's me.

The rules don't cover this at all. Even in tournaments, I think it would be really hard for someone to argue that removing a part of scenery that is clearly not part of the model's body is not allowed.

As others have said there are no rules on this.

Regarding some of the points in the OP, a base is part of a model, so you can’t disregard bits of it (for rules purposes it all counts for LOS etc). And yes, GW just added it to look cool.

As has been covered in many threads, there are pros and cons to different basing, as if you can be seen you in turn can see, and if you can’t be seen you can’t see them.

Honestly, if this is the part of the hobby someone chooses to throw a wobbly about if you turn up with Shrike on a regular base then just don’t play that guy. It’s really not of much importance in 8th. Every choice in basing comes with pros and cons. Do what you like, outside of the usual caveat about tournaments - everyone on Dakka believes themselves a tourney pro, so the usual “only your TO can advise” guidance applies to tournament play.

MFA isn't against the rules, so it's acceptable to do it.

Pragmatically, if you aren’t a tournament player this is pretty much a non-issue. Do what you want.

If you are a tournament player, then I’d suggest making a “stand” that you can put underneath your buildingless Shrike. That way, you can raise the model to “accurate” height without needing to physically change the model.

That said, if you’re handy with magnets, maybe you could magnetize the base, building, and shrike to flip-flop parts as needed. Probably not worth the effort... but you *could*.

The concern would be if you substantially change the models dimensions a TO could rule it inadmissable. Check with your TO first.

U02dah4 wrote:
The concern would be if you substantially change the models dimensions a TO could rule it inadmissable. Check with your TO first.

Good point. Could be worth magnetising it to make it optional, perhaps?

If someone has an issue, agree with them and pull out the older, smaller, but legal model to use instead. Tends to solve "issues" like this quickly.

I don't get why modelling for advantage is even a concern for events. As there is no way to make it good in all instances. You get some instances where you models benefits and sometimes suffers. E.g. the shrike model on scenery is easy to target but also has good LOS to things it wouldn't if in a standing pose. There are many complex situations in the game so modelling will have pros and cons. It would have to be extreme for even there to be some broken combo or something. I dislike these thematic poses, as they take ownership away from my models.

Rather than have an MFA rule, I just would prefer it to be like a rule of "don't be a TFG with your models." Build them how you like to whatever you prefer.

wraith knight sitting cross legged on the floor XD for reducing LOS.

I have actually seen this.

 Type40 wrote:
wraith knight sitting cross legged on the floor XD for reducing LOS.

I have actually seen this.

It reduces his line of sight to others as much as it reduces others line of sight to him.

For something like that ask to have the Wraith Knight treated as standing up. I'm willing to be in a tournament if it came up the judges would rule that way if someone asked.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
wraith knight sitting cross legged on the floor XD for reducing LOS.

I have actually seen this.

It reduces his line of sight to others as much as it reduces others line of sight to him.

For something like that ask to have the Wraith Knight treated as standing up. I'm willing to be in a tournament if it came up the judges would rule that way if someone asked.

The reduction of gis line of sight matters a lot less if it's a CC orientated model that wants to avoid being shot at.
Vrs the opposite situation where oh yeah my repulsor is on a 12 inch high stand so it can shoot over building's.

Yes stop being a TFG does cover it but it's one of those situations where you give an inch and people take a mile.

I say go for it. If someone refuses to play against it and starts whining about 'modelling for advantage', then you know that they're a douchenozzle who isn't worth wasting time on anyway.

MFA is not a real thing. Even in the most extreme cases of customizing models, you just need to agree to treat a model as if it were the 'official' size. It is never an actual problem in the real world unless someone is deliberately being an obnoxious idiot.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I say go for it. If someone refuses to play against it and starts whining about 'modelling for advantage', then you know that they're a douchenozzle who isn't worth wasting time on anyway.

So, somehow following the rules makes you a "douchenozzle who isn't worth wasting time on anyway."...

MFA is not a real thing.

Except, in a game that uses the models actual position to determine things, it is...

Even in the most extreme cases of customizing models, you just need to agree to treat a model as if it were the 'official' size.

That would be an acceptable work-around.

It is never an actual problem in the real world unless someone is deliberately being an obnoxious idiot.

So, somehow following the rules makes you "an obnoxious idiot."...

ThatMG wrote:
I don't get why modelling for advantage is even a concern for events. As there is no way to make it good in all instances. You get some instances where you models benefits and sometimes suffers. E.g. the shrike model on scenery is easy to target but also has good LOS to things it wouldn't if in a standing pose. There are many complex situations in the game so modelling will have pros and cons. It would have to be extreme for even there to be some broken combo or something. I dislike these thematic poses, as they take ownership away from my models.

Rather than have an MFA rule, I just would prefer it to be like a rule of "don't be a TFG with your models." Build them how you like to whatever you prefer.

Smaller shape you can game around better. Not having los is easy to fix with your own position. Hiding becomes hard if you are big.

Say you hide behind rhino. You can position rhino so you see what you want to see and be hidden from certain direction. If your head peeks over rhino you can't do that. Same for terrain etc

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, somehow following the rules makes you a "douchenozzle who isn't worth wasting time on anyway."...

Please provide a source for this rule that forbids making alterations to official models that affect their size/silhouette. Or are you just making rules up to try to 'win' an argument on the internet?

Look, I used to work for GW. I have literally never met anyone in the company who gave a crap about 'modelling for advantage'. It's a fake 'problem' invented by narrow-minded control-freak idiots on the internet who think they have a right to dictate what people do with their own models. The term is generally met with eye-rolls, head-shaking and laughter by GW employees (those who've even heard of it). GW's official position is that converting miniatures to make them better fit your own personal idea of what the thing they're representing should look like is to be encouraged.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, somehow following the rules makes you a "douchenozzle who isn't worth wasting time on anyway."...

Please provide a source for this rule that forbids making alterations to official models that affect their size/silhouette. Or are you just making rules up to try to 'win' an argument on the internet?

Page 2 40K battle Primer:
" The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection"

So they are talking about Citadel Miniatures which are referred to as models in the 40k rules.

Also page 2: "MODELS & DATASHEETS The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle."

From this we know that all models have datasheets.

So we are given permission to use models that have datasheets. Conversions are not allowed, unless you have a citation that says otherwise. (Remember that the rule system is permissive, this means there needs to be a rule that says you can do something in order to be able to do it).

Look, I used to work for GW.

This does not matter at all. This has no bearing on the 40k rules.

I have literally never met anyone in the company who gave a crap about 'modelling for advantage'.

Again this does not matter at all. This has no bearing on the 40k rules.

It's a fake 'problem' invented by narrow-minded control-freak idiots on the internet who think they have a right to dictate what people do with their own models.

It is not a "fake 'problem'" and please do not be rude.

The term is generally met with eye-rolls, head-shaking and laughter by GW employees (those who've even heard of it).

Again this does not matter at all. This has no bearing on the 40k rules. The appeal to authority has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

GW's official position is that converting miniatures to make them better fit your own personal idea of what the thing they're representing should look like is to be encouraged.

Citation needed. There is nothing like this in any of the books/FAQ's.
.

 Duskweaver wrote:

Please provide a source for this rule that forbids making alterations to official models that affect their size/silhouette. Or are you just making rules up to try to 'win' an argument on the internet?

"It doesn't say I can't" is not a valid argument when it comes to a permissive ruleset. The rules also don't say I can't feed a dolphin some wheatabix to automatically pass a morale test either.

The only permission we have is to use Citadel™️ Miniatures.

If modelling for advantage isnt an issue could i take 3 12" tall 4 feet by 1" bastions and hide my artillery behind them out of los.

TO's will and have removed models that do not meet conversion standards. That alone makes it an issue.

However conversions outwith GW are usually permitted provided

They are clearly representing what they are representing
The dimensions are correct

Can we stop all the edgelordery and bleating of “citation needed?”

MFA exists, as demonstrated by the aforementioned cross-legged Wraithknight. People do anything they can to win tournaments and “well nothing in the rules pack said I couldn’t” unfortunately has been used as an excuse.

Whether modelling choices are an issue is up to you and your opponent, your group or the tournament you’re at. No amount of internet bleating will make anyone “right” or “wrong” on this matter.

Most times in 8th there’s an advantage and disadvantage to every modelling or base size choice. This really comes down to the same thing as base size. If you can see more easily you can be seen more easily. If you can’t be seen you don’t have LOS to shoot.

The rules assume you’re using the models assembled out of the box, for the most part. They haven’t given any other guidance, because largely none is necessary. In some extreme cases you may need to check or agree with an opponent. 99 times out of 100 your Cool Dynamic Hero Base you’ve added/omitted isn’t an issue. Unless all your opponent’s GS Cult are “a concept army pictured emerging from secret tunnels” so are just a head and a hand glued onto a slottabase (which would be most definitely MFA in most situations, right dear reader?) then the odd dynamic conversion isn’t an issue.

This won’t stop the back and forth but hopefully serves as a measured post in the midst of the noise.

Tournament house rules have nothing to do with official GW rules.

 p5freak wrote:
Tournament house rules have nothing to do with official GW rules.

They do pertain to how people play the game in certain situations, and as this forum is about discussing how to play the game such decisions may be useful to some people. Not all games are tournaments, but some games use tournament guidelines. Tournaments just get to see more attempted douchery and have to come up with solutions and house rules, which people may find useful to emulate.

 Duskweaver wrote:
. GW's official position is that converting miniatures to make them better fit your own personal idea of what the thing they're representing should look like is to be encouraged.

Although this is also the company that used to claim on their website's Legal Information page that conversions are technically an IP infringement...




However, the argument here is really nothing to do with rules. There is no rule that says that models are only valid if they are built to exactly match their assembly instructions - it's just an assumption that this would be the 'default' around which the rules would be based. The problem with that assumption is that it is based on the bigger assumption that the writers of the rules take the model's physical profile into account when writing the rules. Something that has never been shown to actually be the case. Add in the fact that for all their legal waffle, GW have always encouraged conversions, and we're left with the fact that the rules simply don't cover conversions, and it's something that you're going to have to discuss with your opponent (or the event organiser in the case of organised play) if you are unsure how a given model in your collection will be received.

Moving on.