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 you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Just chiming in randomly on this matter: For the record, all of my Rhinos are the old ones. All the Terminators I have painted are the old metal ones on 25mm bases. Adding 5 of the new Terminators to my army, intentionally squeezed on 25mm bases, wouldn't change the fact that the 15 that I already can field have been like that all this time.

So I would have been playing like a person who is MFA this whole time, with legal models.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Just chiming in randomly on this matter: For the record, all of my Rhinos are the old ones. All the Terminators I have painted are the old metal ones on 25mm bases. Adding 5 of the new Terminators to my army, intentionally squeezed on 25mm bases, wouldn't change the fact that the 15 that I already can field have been like that all this time.

So I would have been playing like a person who is MFA this whole time, with legal models.

Not by my precise, fact-based definition.

Old Termie Model, built as intended, no MFA. Totally okay.

New Termie model, build like an Old one, MFA.

TheCaptain, what do the instructions in the Devastators box say? If it shows how to assemble the marine in the Devastator squad with the Plasmacannon, does that mean that model can never be used outside of that squad? Because, the instruction than say it is a Devastator, not a Tactical marine.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.

How so? You've built a model with no instructions however you please.

Orks do this all the time with some vehicles. People do the same with IG Veterans, Tervigons (Back when there were no Tervigon models), Penal Legion, etc.

The silliness of your idea for a modeling opportunity does not make my notion silly.

So is anyone who builds a unit that has no official model automatically MFA?

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
TheCaptain, what do the instructions in the Devastators box say? If it shows how to assemble the marine in the Devastator squad with the Plasmacannon, does that mean that model can never be used outside of that squad? Because, the instruction than say it is a Devastator, not a Tactical marine.

Au contraire. I think a Devastator with a Plasma Cannon would be fantastically fitting as a count-as for a Tactical Marine with a Plasma Cannon.

Since there are no official models for Tactical Marines with Plasma Cannons, and no instructions for building Tactical Marines with Plasma Cannons, you'd be fully at liberty to use a Devastator Marine with a Plasma Cannon in its stead.

Just like how people used Carnifexes with GS'd tummies as Tervigons, before Tervigon kits were released.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.

How so? You've built a model with no instructions however you please.

Orks do this all the time with some vehicles. People do the same with IG Veterans, Tervigons (Back when there were no Tervigon models), Penal Legion, etc.

The silliness of your idea for a modeling opportunity does not make my notion silly.

So, TheCaptain, what you are saying is that if I built an Ork Looted Wagon that was super tall and had a big Orky cannon on it, and designed it so I could lay it down so that the cannon could be sitting in your deployment zone turn one is not MFA?

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
So is anyone who builds a unit that has no official model automatically MFA?

My posts above and below yours address why this doesn't make any sense within the boundaries of my explanation.

My stance is "Follow the instructions, as/if they are given to you."

I feel like I've said this several times now, addressing the exact same question.

If you have no instructions, you have no one telling you how to build your models. There are no lines to draw inside. You are free to model as you please, with the only limitations being what the codex tells you said model in question can take.

One thing I don't get is how "you can't prove it wasn't the old model" is any kind of justification. If you move your tank an extra 2" and your opponent doesn't catch you does it somehow cease to be cheating? If not, why should it be any different with MFA?

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:

So, TheCaptain, what you are saying is that if I built an Ork Looted Wagon that was super tall and had a big Orky cannon on it, and designed it so I could lay it down so that the cannon could be sitting in your deployment zone turn one is not MFA?

It'd be rather unsportsmanlike.

But (as far as I can recall) there is no Looted Wagon model, so you can kitbash literally however you want.

I don't think anyone will disagree with the freedom to model as you please when there is no model for the unit.

This whole thread is pants on head slowed.

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

It's been said several times that MFA isn't a BRB rule, it's a concept.

This is like saying "Calling someone ugly isn't rude; show me the law!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
This whole thread is pants on head slowed.

Do you disagree that someone is free to model as they please when they are making a unit with no official model?

Within reason, yes, they are. But I also believe that the instructions that come with the models are guidelines, just like the art work that is on the website, the box, and in the Codex. Just like how people are free to paint their army however they want, and given the freedom to even create NEW Space Marine Chapters, and convert their models as they see fit (Which is encouraged by GW).

Silliness like this why I rarely play games except with people I know anymore. When I used to go to my local games store every day, DakkaDakka was a store in the mill buildings in Manchester, New Hampshire, and owned by the Wakelins, and stuff like this would be laughed at because it is so trivial.

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
Within reason, yes, they are.

stuff like this would be laughed at because it is so trivial.

But who decides what is within reason?

And yeah. Everyone has said it is trivial. Ridiculously trivial. But there is still an answer, even to the most trivial questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
But I also believe that the instructions that come with the models are guidelines

They're definitely instructions.

But no one in the world can stop you from only using them as guidelines. And few will ever care if one doesn't follow them perfectly.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

It's been said several times that MFA isn't a BRB rule, it's a concept.

This is like saying "Calling someone ugly isn't rude; show me the law!"

So it is not against the rules to put the guns in the front position. Good to know.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

It's been said several times that MFA isn't a BRB rule, it's a concept.

This is like saying "Calling someone ugly isn't rude; show me the law!"

So it is not against the rules to put the guns in the front position. Good to know.

Not the BRB rules, no.

But MFA is a concept used in many Tournament house-rule sets.

Guys what does MFA stand for? Thanks in advance.

But, if GW encourages the people that buy their models to convert them, then yes the instructions do become mere guidelines. All they are saying is "Here bro, we designed it like this, but build it however you see fit to fit your army."

And everything needs instruction nowadays, even toothpaste has instructions, does that mean that you can only brush your teeth as the allmighty tube says? One thing I have learned in the army and life is that everything needs instructions because people are sue happy, if there weren't any somebody would find a way to hurt themselves and get angry at the company.

Cypher-xv wrote:
Guys what does MFA stand for? Thanks in advance.

Hover over MFA and it will tell you.

P.S. or look at the thread's title.

TheCaptain wrote:I agree that they should.

But 40k uses silly rules like TLOS and Measuring from the gun, so when GW produces different models, they need to be used differently, despite being the "same tabletop unit"

Sure. Which is why a standing Cadian model functions differently to a prone one.

But because the prone model exists, altering a standing model to be prone is not garnering an unfair advantage. You're not getting any benefit tht couldn't be gained by just using the prone model.

TheCaptain wrote:So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

What would be the point in not allowing such things when, again, the player could just as easily use the old models?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
One thing I don't get is how "you can't prove it wasn't the old model" is any kind of justification.

It's not. It's a red herring. There is no reason to need to prove that it is the old model in the first place.

One thing I don't get is how "you can't prove it wasn't the old model" is any kind of justification. If you move your tank an extra 2" and your opponent doesn't catch you does it somehow cease to be cheating? If not, why should it be any different with MFA?

For one thing? Because I don't want to have to worry about things getting to a point where if I don't rip apart my older model just to fit what the packaging of the latest version says (even if the latest version is the exact same model with slightly different instructions) I'll get labelled by some as a guy trying to pull one over on my opponent when they try to claim I am "illegally" modifying a new model to get an extra 1 3/8 inch weapon range.

I'm sorry, but if someone tries to complain about my Landraider having lascannons on the front slots, when I can look over from my computer right now ans tell you that every single image on the box it came out of has them on the front, that's just stupid.

In fact, nearly everything nit-picky about 4oK is pretty moronic. Hell, one of my favorite models is a Dark Eldar Reaver bike from back in the days of 3rd edition, where I converted the weapon mount to be in the nose of the jetbike, rather than behind the rider as normal. Back then it was called modelling to make the figure look cool, not MFA.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

In fact, nearly everything nit-picky about 4oK is pretty moronic. Hell, one of my favorite models is a Dark Eldar Reaver bike from back in the days of 3rd edition, where I converted the weapon mount to be in the nose of the jetbike, rather than behind the rider as normal. Back then it was called modelling to make the figure look cool, not MFA.

Where you put the guns on a bike is irrelevant. It garners you no advantage, because you measure from the base.

Sure it does. If you don't assemble the model correctly, you change its LOS profile... Which going by the logic presented in this thread, is clearly MFA, since any variance from the norm seems to be automatically assumed to grant an advantage.

Exactly. I wasn't talking about measuring from the guns on the model in that case, but altering the profile.

My old-pattern Reaver jetbike does not have it's rifle mounted on the scorpion-esque tail behind the rider, so theoretically it's altered low profile not only makes it look cool and sleek, but I guess in certain cases could let it "hide" behind shorter terrain. No to mention the wildly fluctuating lengths of flying bases in my two units of jetbikes, carrying them all at different heights on the tabletop. Must have been MFA, just ten years ahead of it's time, lol.

 insaniak wrote:
Which going by the logic presented in this thread, is clearly MFA, since any variance from the norm seems to be automatically assumed to grant an advantage.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous strawman. There is no assumption necessary when someone openly says "I want 2" extra range on my guns".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
My old-pattern Reaver jetbike does not have it's rifle mounted on the scorpion-esque tail behind the rider, so theoretically it's altered low profile not only makes it look cool and sleek, but I guess in certain cases could let it "hide" behind shorter terrain

Now let's ignore theory and ask a practical question: would you hide it behind short terrain and claim complete LOS blocking, or would you tell your opponent "I've modified this a bit from the original model, you can actually see it over this low wall because it should have a tail bit sticking up" and just take a normal cover save?

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous strawman. There is no assumption necessary when someone openly says "I want 2" extra range on my guns".

That hasn't been the only example presented in this thread. We've also had mention of incorrectly based terminators, terminators being made smaller, and prone guardsmen, all of which are apparently assumed to be modelling for advantage.

The thing is, just because you can see an advantage, that doesn't automatically mean that there is an advantage overall. Wearing my hat as underwear means it won't get sun-faded. Advantage, right? Does that mean that shoving my hat down my pants is better overall than wearing it on my head?


It's not always as simple as 'This is different from the original model, and so must be MFA'.

It's even less simple when it's not actually different from the original model, as per the post that started this thread.

The Exorcist has absolutely no instructions, does this mean I can build it however I want?

Because if I can counterweight it, I can put the gun on the front to lower its height and increase the range. It might look a little dumb, but with no instructions how am I supposed to know for sure if it's the correct way or not. GW have essentially said "here are some bits, maybe you could make a tank with it".

I would like to point out this simple fact, as stated on the DAMN BOX OF EVERY KIT.

"These multi-part plastic miniatures can be assembled in a variety of ways." Note, it doesn't say "can be assembled according to the provided instructions." It says "can be assembled in a variety of ways." So, it even says on the box in an indirect fashion that the instructions are simply a guide.

Neutralista wrote:
I would like to point out this simple fact, as stated on the DAMN BOX OF EVERY KIT.

"These multi-part plastic miniatures can be assembled in a variety of ways." Note, it doesn't say "can be assembled according tomthe provided instructions." It says "can be assembled in a variety of ways." So, it even says on the box in an indirect fashion that the instructions are simply a guide.

That's a pretty broad interpretation.

Where does it even reference the instructions, let alone say "Hey, the instructions in here; feel free to ignore parts of them."

The instructions clearly show a variety of different ways the miniatures can be assembled. Guardsmen can have lasguns, lasguns with bayonets, a laspistol and a grenade, a laspistol and a chainsword, etc etc.

"Can be assembled in a variety of ways" means your model has options. That's all.