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.

Because of the nightmare that this thread has become, I am re-wording my question. Please do not post off topic material in this thread.

Is altering an Aegis Defense Line so that Gretchin and similar small models (such as Guardsmen Heavy Weapons teams or Tyranid Termagaunts) are able to see through it and fire their weapons, and in turn become viable targets and lose their concealment, a permittable degree of altering a model for advantage in three seperate contexts, based on your personal opinion or experience?

For the purposes of this question, note that we are not operating under the following definition of MFA: "any change, no matter how small, instantly invalidates a model for competitive play"

The three contexts are;

-Friendly/casual/campaign games
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments

Q: Would it be modeling for advantage to replace the standard model with a different one for the specific purpose of allowing better LOS for the models I want to put behind it?
A: Yes.

Yes it would be. You gain an advantage that you normally won't get if you deployed an unmodified ADL. If you would have had a disadvantage I wouldn't mind the fact you had shortened the ADL, but all your models still get a 4+ cover save.

The disadvantage would be that my Gretchin would now be vulnerable to being shot at instead of immune to it.

I'm not trying to model for advantage to be a dick, but rather because Gretchin not being able to fire their Big Guns because of their height just seems incredibly stupid game design to me (they can climb on the gun, or on each others shoulders, or stack a few skulls or rocks or something and look over, or do 99 other things to solve the problem)

Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

I'm just asking a question, no need to be a dick about it.

Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops

Now this guy is on to what I mean. The height of the Gretchin is messing with the purpose of the ADL. I think they should be perfectly targetable behind the line, its defensive benefits being covered completely by the 4+ cover and better go to ground.

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops.

That's not the intent at all. The intent of the model is to provide a specific piece of terrain. Whether or not your models can use it for an effective firing line depends on your choice of models. You don't get to make it smaller to help short models, just like you don't get to make it taller to give cover to a Reaver titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shamikebab wrote:
I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

Many models CAN see over it just fine. Maybe the lesson here is that grots are just too short to make good use of fortifications built to be used by boyz?

 Peregrine wrote:

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops.

That's not the intent at all. The intent of the model is to provide a specific piece of terrain. Whether or not your models can use it for an effective firing line depends on your choice of models. You don't get to make it smaller to help short models, just like you don't get to make it taller to give cover to a Reaver titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shamikebab wrote:
I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

Many models CAN see over it just fine. Maybe the lesson here is that grots are just too short to make good use of fortifications built to be used by boyz?

But surely if the Orks were building it for the grots then they'd make it smaller? I can't see there really being a universal standard size for ADL's throughout the galaxy, surely they'd be built for their intended purpose? Obviously you'd have to take into account gaming impact but I don't think it's unreasonable in this instance and I'd certainly allow it against me.

 shamikebab wrote:
But surely if the Orks were building it for the grots then they'd make it smaller?

Maybe they weren't building it for grots? Maybe all that's on the battlefield is boyz-sized fortifications that grots can't effectively use? Nothing in the rules even comes close to suggesting that you're entitled to a custom-designed aegis line for each type of unit in your army.

Depends how autist you wanna be about the rules vs common sense debate.

Perhaps I could just put a Gretchin model on top of each Big Gun. Then he can see just fine. Or put the ADL just in front of a piece of area terrain represented by a thick felt mat, which adds 5mm of height to the Grot so he can see over. Or maybe a Grot can move on top of another Grots base or something, or move on-top of the line itself.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Depends how autist you wanna be about the rules vs common sense debate.

Oh good, let's resort to insults.

Perhaps I could just put a Gretchin model on top of each Big Gun. Then he can see just fine. Or put the ADL just in front of a piece of area terrain represented by a thick felt mat, which adds 5mm of height to the Grot so he can see over. Or maybe a Grot can move on top of another Grots base or something, or move on-top of the line itself.

Or you could just accept that grots can't make effective use of an aegis line and put them in other terrain, just like I have to accept that my Reaver titan can't make effective use of an aegis line and put it in other terrain.

I'm speaking in general, if I was trying to insult you I'd have quoted you specifically.

Or you could just accept that grots can't make effective use of an aegis line and put them in other terrain

Or you could accept thats just opinion.

What about modelling the Grots on their tip-toes. Theres modelling for advantage, and then modelling thats 'within reason' - tip toes is an action they could feasibly physically attempt. They should be able to do it the same way say, a crouching Space Marine model can 'stand up' to fire.

Well, the rules have a lot of silly things in them, like LoS being drawn from the model's eyes as if the soldier being represented couldn't possibly lean around a corner or whatever. Given the terrain in question seems to be supposed to be a Games Workshop® Aegis Defense Line™ and not a generic wall of your choosing and similar dimensions, it seems like a clear-cut case of modeling for advantage to use something different instead.

However, I think you'd find many players would be fine with you using it and as long as they are then it's okay.

Also, putting a piece of terrain behind it so that your grot could see over the Aegis Defense Line by standing on the base is even more sketchy than your original question, IMO.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Or you could accept thats just opinion.

It's not opinion at all. There are no rules that permit what you want to do, and all you have is your sense of outrage that you can't make a unit as powerful as you want it to be.

What about modelling the Grots on their tip-toes. Theres modelling for advantage, and then modelling thats 'within reason' - tip toes is an action they could feasibly physically attempt. They should be able to do it the same way say, a crouching Space Marine model can 'stand up' to fire.

That's still modeling for advantage. Give it up.

 shamikebab wrote:

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:
Disagree with the above comments. The aegis line has a stock model, yes. But the intent rules-wise is clearly that it should be a firing line for your troops. I would allow your gretchin to fire over the stock model if the unit was directly behind it, and would expect to be allowed to shoot them back. If you want to convert a defence line that makes this more intuitive and reduces confusion, go for it.

For all the people who disagree, do you check if your opponents have crouching models in a unit behind ADLs, and stop them from firing with those models if they are out of LOS?

I agree with this, why on earth would they build a defensive line they couldn't see over?

It wasn't built for them. Remenber, ADLs are battlefield debris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Asking if modifying a model to gain advantage is "modelling for advantage" os rather redundant. And saying that gretchen are victimsnof poor game design makes no sense. Are little guys supposed to be bigger?

Your tactic is flawed, try again.

I'm just asking a question, no need to be a dick about it.

I wasn't being a dick. I was merely questioning the logic of asking if an action that is considered wrong is wrong.

Dakkamite... when you post a topic or debate anything here on Dakkadakka you soon learn that there are a number of people whose replies, opinions or take on 40K in particular (and take on life in general) that you simply have to ignore in order to remain sane. Of course you should feel free to modify and scratch build a grot-barricade. For grots, by grots and to grot standard Not only does it make sense, it would also look awesome on the table. If anyone would have issues with that... well, that would say something about that player, wouldn't it? Always go for "the spirit of the game"!

Agusto

Agusto wrote:
Dakkamite... when you post a topic or debate anything here on Dakkadakka you soon learn that there are a number of people whose replies, opinions or take on 40K in particular (and take on life in general) that you simply have to ignore in order to remain sane. Of course you should feel free to modify and scratch build a grot-barricade. For grots, by grots and to grot standard Not only does it make sense, it would also look awesome on the table. If anyone would have issues with that... well, that would say something about that player, wouldn't it? Always go for "the spirit of the game"!

Agusto

Thank god for that, I was starting to worry that perhaps I had picked up the wrong hobby.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Thank god for that, I was starting to worry that perhaps I had picked up the wrong hobby.

Why do you even bother asking a question if you're just going to ignore the people who disagree with you and only accept the answer you wanted to hear?

go for it. atleast youre scratch building it.

i find it hilarious that people pay 50 bucks for some crapy looking imperial walls and the little turret thingy. it's lame, really lame.

@ Dakkamite

Aren't you cherry picking here?

Agustos opinion on this issue is no more (or any less) valid than the other ones presented in this thread.
It isn't a great mystery that you agree with someone that agrees with you.

You are still left with the fact that some people see such modifications of the ADL as modelling for advantage.
Going; "I can sleep soundly because the other players I talked to about this agree with me (because I dismiss those that disagree as; "playing the game wrong")" is not really a healthy thing to do.


...

You could always model your gretchin to look like they are standing on eachothers shoulders. Rule of Cool.

Yes, it's modelling for advantage. But, I know I certainly wouldn't call you out on it, and would look down on anyone who did, because it's a rather minor thing and it just makes sense to do.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Cherry Picking
[...]
Going; "I can sleep soundly because the other players I talked to about this agree with me (because I dismiss those that disagree as; "playing the game wrong")" is not really a healthy thing to do.

When did I do that?

Extremely obviously modeling for advantage, to the point where I would actually call over a judge if I saw it at a GT.

I'm a pretty lenient guy, but modeling something so that units can interact with it in a fundamentally different manner that favors you is nearly the definition of modelling for advantage.

I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

 DarkCorsair wrote:
Yes, it's modelling for advantage. But, I know I certainly wouldn't call you out on it, and would look down on anyone who did, because it's a rather minor thing and it just makes sense to do.

Exactly, the answer to the question is a resounding 'Yes, you would be modelling for advantage'. However, many scratch built units are of a different proportion to their intended unit. So long as it isn't ridiculous then you shouldn't be pulled up for it. Instead of lowering it simply put some Grot height holes in it.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

I'd be totally down for that, as long as I could fire the guns at BS 3 because theres a Gretchin on top directing the shots! (who also cannot fire that turn, and has a chance of being fired alongside the projectile!)

Extremely obviously modeling for advantage, to the point where I would actually call over a judge if I saw it at a GT.

I'm a pretty lenient guy, but modeling something so that units can interact with it in a fundamentally different manner that favors you is nearly the definition of modelling for advantage.

In that case, I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about some other models of mine. I converted some stormboys using helicopter blades and such from deff koptas, and placed them on shorted clear sticks atop rocks because it makes them look cooler. Now we have a model thats twice as tall as a standard Stormboy. Should I be able to use these? Can they now see over, and shoot over tall obstacles (and likewise get shot at when behind cover that would normally protect them?) or do we just 'count them' as normal sized stormboys whenever this issue comes up?

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I would allow you this

Your Gretchin, realising that they are not tall enough to shoot over the wall, agree to give each other piggy backs. You may shoot as if they have a line of sight but your number of shots is reduced by half, due to the Gretchin not being able to hold their mate and fire a gun.

They also receive -1 to their BS skill as the Grethcin that they are being held by is rather puny and wobbles about an awful lot.

Or agree on a compromise ^