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.

I'd play against it. However, if I lost, I would totally blame the 3mm reduction in height of your aegis defense line for the loss and tip the table over.

I think the only way to beat someone so picky about to rules, is to play their game. The rules say, that you must place the pieces of the aegis end to end. But they don't say what way up, you have to place it, so put them down on their sides with the bulge in the air, so that grot's can see over it, and still have some cover behind it. If people are going to get so nitpicky with you, then just ask them to show you where it says you can't do this.

I would allow it. Just use your imagination. The grotz are jumping or climbing the barracade to fire and be fired upon.

Agusto wrote:
Because for me, a model that is kneeling or standing doesn't matter for me.

Which is fine as a house rule, but not how the rules of the game work. Or how they have ever worked.

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,...

That's certainly one approach. The other would be to assume that models that are too short to see over a wall are unable to see over the wall. This approach makes just as much sense, and has the added benefit of following the rules of the game.


Otherwise, where exactly do you draw the line? Should we also assume that your grots are carrying stepladders with them so that they can see over intervening battlewagons?

Oh god, this thread.

This thread.

Uh.

Just ask the organizer if it's OK. This thread gets nowhere.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
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".

Ho, ho! Calm down buddy!

The OP asked if it's MFA. Yes, it is MFA!
If the OP asked if we'd allow it in a game, I can assure you that most answers would be 'Yes!'.

People should really start to learn this on YMDC.
If you ask for the rules on something, you will get the unbiased, factual and RAW rules on it.
Because we could tell him all day long that we'd allow it but that doesn't change how his playgroup feels about it.

rather then cheating just put the gun at the side of the adl where the grot has line of sight

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Oh god, this thread.

This thread.

Uh.

Just ask the organizer if it's OK. This thread gets nowhere.

Yeah I realized that a while ago.

Put your grots on scenic bases... some of the ones from MAS or Scibor can add a good 1" to your model's height. And people can't whine about it.
Seriously, in the realm of 'modelling for advantage' there are far more egregious examples than this.
If anyone tries to tell you off for this, don't play them and you've probably just saved yourself 2 hours of tedium.

Frogomatik wrote:
I would ask for one addendum. any lager-than-grot sized models behind the line only get to use it as standard 5-6+ cover save

This.

Here's how I decide if somethings MFA.

1. IS it actually modelled out of the ordinary?

TRUE? Go to 2.
FALSE? go to 5.

2. Is it modelled without altering parts?

TRUE? Go to 5.
FALSE? Go to 3.

3. Is the Model Altered for reasons other than Advantage and aesthetics? (stands better, takes less damage when handled, bits don't break off...)

TRUE? go to 5.
FALSE? go to 4.

4. Is the model Altered in such a way that it gains an advantage? (Aesthetically pleasing or not.)

TRUE? Go to 6.
FALSE? go to 5.


5. No, it is not altered for advantage.
6. Yes, it is altered for advantage.

My perspective:

It is modelling for advantage. That is, I feel, undeniable - you said yourself that you are modelling it a particular way to gain a particular advantage!

If it looks cool (especially if it looks more Orky), I don't care for a casual game.

If you plan to take it to a tournament, check with the TO first. He may say yes, he may say no, but either way you know ahead of time.

This whole thing blows my mind.

Clearly, he's modeling an ADL for the advantage of grots being able to see over it, but he's also voluntarily taking the disadvantage of the grots being able to be shot at, since they can see over it. He's modeling for disadvantage, too, right?

Then, people point out that there is a 'stock model'. This isn't stock car racing. The table officials don't come over with a template to make sure your model is the exact same height, width, and length in millimeters as the stock model. The fact that there is a stock model doesn't obligate you to use the model as stock, or even buy the stock model. Would it have been ok if he had made the model before the stock ADL was available for sale, or would his defense line suddenly become MFA?

People are claiming that grots, as assembled, can't see over a defense line, as assembled. However, modeling your grots on scenic bases is legal, even though that makes them able to see over the ADL. So raising the grots is legal, but lowering the defense line is illegal? How is it legal to intentionally raise the model for better visibility, when it's illegal to intentionally lower the wall scenery for better visibility? Don't both modeling choices have a lasting effect on TLOS in the game?

Plus, evidently, if you built a defense line, and it turned out to be lower, and THEN you put grots into it, it would be legal, because you didn't INTEND to model it for advantage, but if you INTENDED to model it so that grots could see over it, then it is illegal. I have a problem with any 'rule' that requires us to figure out the intent of the modeler. What if he changed his mind and decided not to model it for advantage, but accidentally still built one with a lower vision threshold. Could he use it then? What if he intended to model one with a lower vision slot, but didn't get around to it, and bought one off the internet that happened to be modeled that way by someone who's intention was pure, but he didn't know the precise measurements until he got it?

If someone goes to all the trouble to make their own ADL that has a slightly lower wall, then they are getting the same benefits and penalties out of it all the time. Smaller models can fire out of it, but smaller models can now be fired upon in cases where they would be out of sight in a larger ADL. The ADL will block less line of sight than a standard ADL, both for good and for ill. It's not like he's asking people to pretend that the grots are standing on tippy-toe, so you have to imagine whether you have line of sight to them or not. He's got a model and he wants to use it.

What if someone's 'wrecked Rhino' or 'crater' is taller than the stock model? What if someone uses an old Terminator which is smaller than the new one? What if someone assembles their battlesuit in a crouch, rather than standing up tall?

Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

MFA is a player convention, and one that most tournaments adhere to. If a model gives you an advantage over the model that GW puts out them mots tournaments will either:

1) They will let you use the model, but you have to pretend it is the same dimensions as the GW model.
2) They will not let you use the model and you must use the correct model.
or
3) They will let you use the model as is and gain the advantage.

Most tournaments will play it as #1

Da Butcha wrote:
The fact that there is a stock model doesn't obligate you to use the model as stock, or even buy the stock model.

No, it doesn't. There is, however, a general assumption that the rules are written for the 'official' models, though, and so changing the model changes the way they function outside of how they were designed to work.

In a game where two guardsmen can cost the same number of points but function differently due to one of them being modelled kneeling down, it's up to the individual players to decide just how big a deal this actually is in practice.

However, modeling your grots on scenic bases is legal, ...

No, actually, it's not. It's commonly accepted... but the rules, while mentioning that some people use scenic bases, stop short of specifically allowing them.

Plus, evidently, if you built a defense line, and it turned out to be lower, and THEN you put grots into it, it would be legal, because you didn't INTEND to model it for advantage,...

If you accept that using a wall with different proportions to the official model is legal, then whether or not it is modelling for advantage has no effect on its legality.

MFA governs whether or not your opponent thinks you are trying to gain an unfair advantage, not about whether or not the model is legal. MFA doesn't in itself make the model illegal, unless you judge that all conversions are technically illegal in the first place.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Da Butcha, MFA is not a rulebook thing, therefore a converted model can never be legal as per the rules for 40k.

Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

You find it in the same place as the rules that allow you to assemble your models.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Really? The rules section talks about modeling?

Citation needed. Page and Graph will suffice.

You find it in the same place as the rules that allow you to assemble your models.

So not in the rules then?

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

 Happyjew wrote:

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

Either there isn't one, or we take the modelling section as such (It's in the rulebook, after all.) That's why bringing up that there are no rules that allow converting is absolutely pointless. There are exactly as much rules support for converting models as there is for assembling them.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

The rules are a permissive rule set. In order to do something you must have permission with no restriction. This does not mean people play strict RAW. Where is your permission to assemble/convert/paint Games Workshop miniatures?

Either there isn't one, or we take the modelling section as such (It's in the rulebook, after all.) That's why bringing up that there are no rules that allow converting is absolutely pointless. There are exactly as much rules support for converting models as there is for assembling them.

I don't see this section in my rulebook on hand. Just Introduction, The Rules and Reference.

 Happyjew wrote:

I don't see this section in my rulebook on hand. Just Introduction, The Rules and Reference.

Luckily my rulebook still has it, so I'm allowed to assemble my models!

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

So not in the rules then?

Have fun playing with the sprues.

Ill will take the lack of an answer or page reference to mean that it is not in the rules and your response of

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, that's still not true. They put that modelling section in the BRB on purpose, buddy.

to have no basis in any rules at all.

EVERYTHING IN THE RULEBOOK IS RULES, INCLUDING THE WARDIAN FLUFF THAT TELLS US THAT EVERY ARMY IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE'S IN EVERY CONCIEVABLE WAY.

in other words, the rulebook is not a peer reviewed journal. Not everything in it is relevant to its topic.

Actually the rulebook DOES have a section called "The Rules", so it is apropos to assume that is where the rules are located

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the rulebook DOES have a section called "The Rules", so it is apropos to assume that is where the rules are located

Exactly this.

No mention of converting in the rules.

Modeling for advantage... Grots are not tall enough to see over an ADL.

Just like how kneeling Tau can't see over it, but they can see under a skimmer. So a whole unit of kneeling tau can see under a skimmer.

The only grots in my collection who can see over a ADL is the old 'head honcho' grot, a few of the metal gorkamorka grots which are large. Buying stock models who can see is different than modeling for advantage.

Grots can get cover from literally everything, not sure there is even a need for an ADL for them.

They wanted an ADL for the Guns crew, not just o hide behind the ADL out of sight.

Pure, unadulterated MFA, but saying that apparently makes you "taht guy", according to some in thsi thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Exactly this.

No mention of converting in the rules.

Or assembling (assembling models is on p. 312 of BRB, in the Hobby section.) So you cannot actually play the fething game. In order to play the game, you have to refer to the Hobby section content, so whether they're technically rules or not is irrelevant.

My point: saying that there are no rules for allowing you to use converted models implicates that you could use that same model unconverted. Which following your logic is not actually the case; you can't use the model at all, as there are no rules to allow you to assemble it in any manner. If you actually meant that any assembled models cannot be used at all, then say that (but you probably didn't.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Buying stock models who can see is different than modeling for advantage.

Really? (We already had this thread a while ago.) So If I buy a kneeling sniper it is OK, but if I convert one from bits it is not? And how about multi-part plastic kits? How I know which bit goes where? Can I mix kits?