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.

Rotgut, I also see your point of view. I respect it, even though I can't say that I agree Because for me, a model that is kneeling or standing doesn't matter for me. A model laying down could easily be tilted upon the edge of the ADL to represent the model standing up or something similar. For me there has to be a common, shared understanding of intent between the players. Otherwise, any game involving models of representation is impossible. Hence, I personally would have no issue with a player using grots, ratlings or other smaller models behind a prepared piece of fortification. I would just "pretend" that they all had boxes to stand on or that there were steps dug out in the mound behind the wall or something that enabled them to stand and shoot, just as I would pretend that a model lying down could stand up. In a world where we pretend that undead robots clash with space elves who have chosen a BDSM style of life, we pretend that supersonic air superiority fighters can safely strafe one specific dude and not the dude an inch to the left or right or that, due to some strange notion, it makes sense that only one person at a time can throw a grenade or that George over there wouldn't pick up Billy's meltagun after he had been killed and try to blow that raider out of the sky... All we do in 40K ( and WHFB) is pretending! So I have to rest my case with saying that should I face an opponent, in a friendly or tournament setting, I would be ok with pretty much anything as long as he or she was a decent fellow and made his or her point sound resonable. "Grots standing on buckets to peer over, you say? As long as I can shoot back, go ahead "

That is all I have to say in this matter: Agusto

Whats so wrong with shortening the height of an ADL for grots to see over? that just reduces the effectiveness of an ADL which would be a disadvantage since only grots would be able to gain the cover save granted by the ADL, ork sized models would be stuck using regular cover saves. Similar how bases can be of a larger size from standard, theres no advantage to it, only disadvantages.

About the you can only use the official model of the army list entry, then you are saying that all converted models are not allowed to be used. I have a custom sanguinor that doesnt use any sanguinor parts, many scratch build their own characters as well.

I agree with you Agusto, which is why I said in a friendly game it doesnt matter, as long as you say hey I can shoot you and you can shoot me back.

The issue is in non friendly games, if he goes to a tournament there will be different rules, which is why I said he should put the models on debris so they stand taller or cut down certain parts of the ADL so its still the same size for the most part but grots can see over or through it.

I have seen people in a tournament playing ork's, who have been allowed to use this (With 2 long peices cut into short pieces to make the proper aegis line dimensions) as a defence line, when playing ork's. It counted as a fair conversion, and I have to agree. We can convert vehicles, models, whatever we like, and most tournament's will be ok with it, as long as it is not specifically silly for advantage, like changing the position of a gun on a tank to give it better range.

I can see this working, it costs the same as an aegis, and I don't personally think it's a coincedence that this, the city ruins wall, and the aegis defence line, all come with the same "length" of walling. With 2 peices cut in half, this has the exact dimensions of an aegis, and so i beleive GW might have made the aegis in the same dimensions, so that people could use these as well, dependant on army theme.



I would find this cool, thematic, and totally plausable, more plausable than ork's bringing imperial barricades with them in a battlefield.

Agusto wrote:
If we were to say that: "No, a grot can't use a regular ADL because they are too short (shortism, lengthism?) and would hinder their LoS, nor can they use a scratch or custom built one because that would be MFA (instead of viewing it as a cool conversion and something that benefits not only the game but the hobby as a whole)" I wonder what those people would say about ordinary IG units behind an ADL. If LoS is what is required, then how the heck would these squating guys go about using an ADL?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080043
They can't possibly see anything and I have still found myself on the other side of the table from IG-players with heavy weapons behind an ADL claiming both cover and LoS.

And since some of the players claiming that all Forgeworld should be ok, are these guys firing from a higher position than a grot?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-HEAVY-STUBBER-TEAM-1.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/DEATH_KORPS_OF_KRIEG_INFANTRY_AND_ACCESSORIES/DEATH-KORPS-OF-KRIEG-LASCANNON-TEAM-1.html

And if that isn't close enough... how the heck would these guys be of any use behind... well... anything?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1080055

There is something that is called RAI, there is something called "the spirit of the game", there is something called using ones senses. In 40K, as in every game, hell as in life itself, there are things that doesn't add up 100%. Sometimes we have to fudge things, sometimes we have to bend reality, rules and what is written just a little so that we can get on with things and let stuff run smoothly. Calling a ref because someone has made a cool custom wall for some grots.Sheeesh... I think this is why the casual, non competitive, beer and pretzel gamer and the competitive, tournament, WAMC will never see eye to eye when it comes to this hobby.

Agusto

ps: Mythra, I applaud you! That is my own point exactly... only you phrased yourself and found better images than I ever would have.

This guy wins. End thread.

that's good, gretchins cant use it but neither can alot of guard units either. works for me.

when it comes down to it - make whatever models you want, do what you like but here are a few things:

Instead of paying the 100 or whatever points, just bring terrain that would give them the cover save...I mean - your opponent CANNOT deny you using terrain AND you save the 100 points.

Also, you could field and see what the opponents say. If they complain - then take the time to fill in the 100 points you spent. If it is at a Tourney, verify beforehand with the TO and have a backup list if they decline it.

As for the people who are ranting MFA - I would better hope that every model you field is built EXACTLY as they are supposed to, no modifications and are on the flat base (nothing scenic that raises them even a little) or are always counting them as the model is supposed to be - otherwise you are MFA, according to your own statements that ANY change to a model is MFA since they MUST be built and such as they are supplied.

When it comes down to it - what all of us say matters nothing - it is either the opponent in a friendly game or the TO at a tournament that get to decide what is and what is not MFA.

Actually a big issue and reason why the ADL is used is the quad cannon and its anti-air capability, which many armies, such as Orks, desperately need.

the aegis line has small gun ports in each section,

they look to be at grot eye level to me,

why cant they see/(be seen) through those?

easysauce wrote:
the aegis line has small gun ports in each section,

they look to be at grot eye level to me,

why cant they see/(be seen) through those?

They aren't grot eye level. They are above their heads. Grots are REAAAAALLY short.

edit: Heh, my army comes up on the first page of GIS for 'gretchin aegis'

 Mythra wrote:

I wouldn't have a problem with this:

http://40kaddict.blogspot.com/2012/10/nids-part-60-terrain-is-everything.html

The Tyranids can't use a quad gun but that just plain is awesome and should be allowed. I think it is silly to have every race using imperial models never felt right.

Why thank you! For some reason when I made it I got a bit carried away and it was actually a whole long section too long to be considered legal. I don't know how I got my measurements so bad but I've since stopped using the extra piece. Additionally one of the smaller pieces is taller than originally planned but I've never had an opponent claim I couldn't shoot from behind it, even with Termagants but then they could theoretically stand on their hind legs and shoot over the top.

Ultimately Dakkamite you need to be asking this question of your local gaming group. There will always be folk who will disagree to your hoped for response on an open forum but it's the people you play with who it matters most to and hopefully they will want to have fun and game, not pick apart the realities of an abstract war game. Failing all that mount each wall section on a base and added ammo crates and sand bags behind so the little grots can stand a bit taller.



Oh and this won me Monument of Legend - best fortification at March's Throne of Skulls

Superb and congrats on the award

That looks really cool. Normally I don't like Tyranid stuff, but that's a great piece.

We should all have fun and get super picky.

Somehow I think players would find many more stock figures that can't fire correctly over an Aegis if you require an Aegis to be on as thick of a base as GW figures rather than sitting at tabletop level. Why? Because all GW figures are being treated as being taller than they are because of the thickness of a slottabase. It automatically gives every figure's eye-level at least a +3mm in height over non-based terrain, before taking any sort of basing material into account.

Grots would actually get MORE of a disadvantage if you raised a ADL on a 3mm thick base.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
We should all have fun and get super picky.

Somehow I think players would find many more stock figures that can't fire correctly over an Aegis if you require an Aegis to be on as thick of a base as GW figures rather than sitting at tabletop level. Why? Because all GW figures are being treated as being taller than they are because of the thickness of a slottabase. It automatically gives every figure's eye-level at least a +3mm in height over non-based terrain, before taking any sort of basing material into account.

Grots would actually get MORE of a disadvantage if you raised a ADL on a 3mm thick base.

Does the GW ADL infact come with such bases?which im sure it deosnt in which case you dont need to ever model it with them....

So what do you guys think about tau hammerheads and ADL. I personally don't know anyone who uses the little hoover base that comes with it. Everyone just moves it on its landing gears. Is this "modeling for advantage" because now I will get a cover save the from ADL where if it is on its stand it won't?

I literally made an account just to post on this thread (although this won't be my last post). I was planning on becoming an active member later but hey I got an idea to solve this dilemma.

I would suggest modelling an ADL using something like this:
http://www.2expertsdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MetalGrid.jpg

Why? Because the grots can see through it and since it counts as an ADL it still grants the usual benefits. Make it the same height as the standard ADL and vehicles that normally benefit from it still can. Fluff reasoning? The grots and Orks "believe" it to be just as effective as the standard version so it works. The only disadvantage would be that it doesn't block LOS but even the standard version is not designed to do that effectively.

It's Modeling for advantage.

You're modeling it to gain an advantage.

That said, not many people would care. You probably have nothing to worry about.

But if someone is insisting that it isn't modeling for advantage, well, they're pretty wrong. It's quite clear-cut.

-TheCaptain

Apparently it's 'advantageous' to expose your soldiers to more firepower, thank god I only play WH40K with human beings that have the capacity to see the odd shade of grey. Robo-hammer sounds pretty dull. Turn up to play me with your own Aegis that you've scratch built and shown an interest in actually engaging with the hobby in a more constructive fashion than strawmanning incessantly on dakka, and I'll play you. I know it's an Aegis, so do you, lets roll some damn dice.

inb4 EETS THE ROOLEZ AZ RITEN!!1

What I've gotten from this thread:
-- Steel Legion, Vostroyan, and many other IG HWT's are unable to effectively utilize ADL's.
-- Using the kneeling legs for models because they are cool is pointless if you want to use an ADL.
-- Modifying GW figures and creating cool models that win painting awards will get you punished by TO's.
-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it. That being said, we've pretty consistently played that if you are in base contact with a barricade such as an ADL, you can shoot over it without impediment, regardless of TLOS. Come down to Carbondale and we'll totally give you a fair shake! (Plus, custom ADL's are always a welcome sight on my battlefields!)

-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it.

What disadvantages? The only possible one would be not being able to put vehicles behind it as easily, but that's not the OP's intent anyway. Making it smaller is a pure advantage.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

Except it probably won't work, since you can look over the aegis line if you have a taller model or an elevated position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

Except it probably won't work, since you can look over the aegis line if you have a taller model or an elevated position.

Not if the grots are in base to base contact or just very close to the aegis. You'd need a very tall model to see that.

Put a step behind it, and count them as any other model.
If they're on the step, they can fire and get shot at.
Behind the step, LoS rules.

 Dakkamite wrote:

-- As the enemy cannot draw TLOS to grotlings behind an ADL, they cannot be assaulted or shot, and can thus create an impenetrable barrier to shooty units behind an ADL.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on that ruling (I'll post it up when I hear what the TO has to say) but if I cannot into Grot Big Guns, a cheap and nasty "box of grots" on an objective would also be hilarious.

isnt B2B with an ADL considered assault distance etc.. so you'll need to be an inch or so back then they are Over it and assaulting you OR shooting you..

 Dakkamite wrote:
Hey Dakka, I'm looking to use Big Guns and an ADL in my next game, and its just come to my attention that when using the default models, the ADL is too tall for my Gretchin to see over, meaning they cannot use two of the three gun options. Since I'm building an ADL from scratch (it'll be an 'Ork defense line' made out of scrap!) would it be 'modelling for advantage' to make the ADL shorter, to put holes or gaps, or to make the top half somewhat permeable (ie spikes instead of a solid wall) that would both allow the Gretchin to fire their weapons and artillery from behind it, and also equally expose the models to incoming fire as opposed to putting them 'out of sight'?

This is absolutely, totally, and completely modeling for advantage.

"Hey guys, is changing the stock GW model so my models gain an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have count as MFA?"
Yes of bloody course it does!

The Rule of Cool would more than likely apply if you are going to scratch build it and it looks awesome, and I imagine no one would have a problem with it in friendly games; but be aware that you are RAW cheating, and In no tournament would they allow you to do this.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
isnt B2B with an ADL considered assault distance etc.. so you'll need to be an inch or so back then they are Over it and assaulting you OR shooting you..

Ah, but therein lies the dilemma. You're not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy unless assaulting. And if you're 1" away from the grots you won't necessarily be able to see them, thus you can't assault them. Or shoot them. Or anything. There are ways around this by approaching the line in a certain way, but it's still a bit of a silly situation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Seems like the net benefit of a shortened ADL would be outweighed by the disadvantages, so I'd be cool with it.

What disadvantages? The only possible one would be not being able to put vehicles behind it as easily, but that's not the OP's intent anyway. Making it smaller is a pure advantage.

Well, it wouldn't shield vehicles as effectively, including walkers. I think it might not give cover, at that height, to a number of the larger ork infantry, including megabosses or those helicopter things the orks like to rock.

Plus, the shorter his ADL is, the shorter my models can be and still see completely over it, without the ADL granting cover at all. [Bill Murray impersonation] So I got that going for me. [/Bill Murray impersonation.]

I'm not saying that's how it should be run at tournaments, or that it isn't modelling for advantage. At the same time, I'd play against it. It's fluffy, and it would look better on the tabletop, which is more important to me than a 'RAW or die' adherence to the rules.

Page 8 BRB 'Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas,drama and creativity to the garne. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows;it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.'

I think it sounds cool. I may even consider making one myself. The idea is for it to be fun to play, I'm sure I recall Jervis saying that was the most important rule (or it could have been the spirit of the game) in WD. For every one that won't let you use it, I expect there are two that will.

Page 8 BRB 'Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas,drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows;it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.'

Unfortunately in the current day and age of 40K gaming, that notion has fallen by the wayside more than ever. In fact, I think you will find many people on Dakkadakka that will call those two sentences "complete crap", to support "their" interpretation of the rules over something they don;t want a random other gamer using. And that's downright unfortunate.

This entire thread is a giant opportunity to remember why I don't play other than with close friends, and especially not in 6th edition. In previous editions/years, people would throw a firing step behind a homemade, properly Orky barricade for their Grots to fire from, and everyone would call it good.

Now, the very notion involved name calling and rules lawyering.

Rules-lawering an Aegis line to be "too tall for Grots to fire over" is like saying that a Wraithguard unit can't fire out of a particular bunker by arguing that the "human eye-level firing slit" is too low for them to see out of. I very much doubt that the incredibly Imperial-centric model for ADL was meant to be the bog-standard for what any homemade one can be made to measurements from, and that it was somehow meant for Grots, kneeling models, and prone-lying Heavy Weapons Teams to be unable to "fire over it".

Honestly, it's taking the stupid part of "true line of sight" to the extreme. There's a reason most miniatures game rules are abstract. In any other game system, an analogy of the ADL would simply end up being a barricade that affects all infantry-style models in the exact same way, no matter their relative height, stance or basing style, be they Grot, or 28mm Human or Wraithlord/Ogryn-size model.