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.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move, so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls, if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

 dwez wrote:
I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

You mean you would be surprised if people followed the rules. True Line of Sight is a rule after all...

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move,

The fluff says this is true.

so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls

Not according to the rules of the game they can not.

if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

In theory that is all well and good, but it does not gel with the actual rules of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

DeathReaper wrote:

 dwez wrote:
I think the overall consensus it's modelling for advantage , technically - so don't shorten it, just run it as is [maybe add some Orky bits or graffiti for giggles]. I'd be surprised if anyone said they couldn't shoot over it anyway but if they did just deal with it.

You mean you would be surprised if people followed the rules. True Line of Sight is a rule after all...

Just remember that these little plastic men aren't statues, they represent things that move,

The fluff says this is true.

so they can pull themselves up and shoot over walls

Not according to the rules of the game they can not.

if they can climb 3" to the next level of a ruin that has no ladder in they can theoretically shoot over a wall.

In theory that is all well and good, but it does not gel with the actual rules of the game.

You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

Drilling holes to be able to see through it is pretty much the definition of modeling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
Start with an actual ADL. Ork it up some... drill some holes, etc... This is an effective way of creating LOS for the shorter grots without changing the dimensions of the ADL.

And still MFA.

Explain to me why using an existing ADL and converting it without changing the dimension is MFA?

Drilling holes to be able to see through it is pretty much the definition of modeling for advantage.

Exactly this. Creating holes in something that does not have them, just so your short models can fire their weapons when they were not able to before is the definition of modeling for advantage.

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

Again Rig hits it right on the head. Why is playing by the rules bad?

And I play about once a week and my opponents and myself always have a good time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
You must be the least fun person to play against in your local area. Do you inspect every single piece of terrain to ensure that no opponent ever gets an advantage from the shape of the model, as well?

No idea how you got that from his post... Why is playing by the rules bad?

Again Rig hits it right on the head. Why is playing by the rules bad?

And I play about once a week and my opponents and myself always have a good time.

QFT... Converting models is fine. Converting models to change how they interact with the rules, if you were doing it for 'making a cool model' then why would you object to playing as if it was the appropriate model?

I play Orks and have tons of conversions, and whenever a conversion conflicts with the rules... I follow the rules and tell my opponent 'I will play as if it was the appropriate model' and then they are ok with it.

Following the rules is not being TFG. Wanting to not gain undeserved advantage is good sportsmanship.

I suppose then, my quesiton is thus:

What if the OP were to create his own scratch-built terrain, that looks like a trench, and was just large enough for his Grots? How would that be any different?

Let's even take it a step further: what if his board had a bunch of, say, tree stumps strewn about it. And the OP places the ADL just in front of some of those tree stumps, such that Grots can be placed on the stumps and thus see over the wall? Is that modelling for advantage? The tree stumps are not part of the ADL. Would you call that "placement for advantage", then?

Beyond that, what if the OP modelled his Grots such that they were all standing on each other's shoulders? Would that constitute modelling for advantage? Look at it in a vacuum; before the ADL existed, would you have claimed it was MFA?

Exactly this. Creating holes in something that does not have them, just so your short models can fire their weapons when they were not able to before is the definition of modeling for advantage.

I am not sure what ADLs that you are using but my ADL has firing slits in it, it isn't like the model is not intended to have viewing slits to see/fire from.

Making a comparison, I can model all of a Bastion's heavy bolters on one face if I choose to do so even though the Citadel building kit instructions indicate otherwise. Why can I do this? Well the Bastion has four heavy bolters and does not state in its rules that they must be placed each on a separate face even though the building kit instructions demonstrate otherwise. Now apply this to the ADL. I have a model that has viewing/firing slits on it, but the rules do not restrict me to where those must be located at. I could in fact cover the stock model slits and drill new ones if I am so inclined.

I have done nothing to change the physical profile of the model which is in fact the premise behind MFA.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I suppose then, my quesiton is thus:

What if the OP were to create his own scratch-built terrain, that looks like a trench, and was just large enough for his Grots? How would that be any different?

ADL is not a trench, so you couldn't use a trench as an ADL any more than you could use a hill, a ruin or a crater. Now if the table had trenches on it, you would be fine to use the terrain as terrain.

Let's even take it a step further: what if his board had a bunch of, say, tree stumps strewn about it. And the OP places the ADL just in front of some of those tree stumps, such that Grots can be placed on the stumps and thus see over the wall? Is that modelling for advantage? The tree stumps are not part of the ADL. Would you call that "placement for advantage", then?

If there was terrain on the table, and there happened through legal placement of terrain happened to be a piece of terrain with stumps which happened to legally end up in your deployment zone and your opponent chose the site of the table opposite from it, and you can legally place your ADL in front of the stumps to see over, then you can do that.

That is all a pretty big IF, and to pull off may require house rules or flat out cheating in other terrain placement parts of the ruleset.

Beyond that, what if the OP modelled his Grots such that they were all standing on each other's shoulders? Would that constitute modelling for advantage? Look at it in a vacuum; before the ADL existed, would you have claimed it was MFA?

If you were doing it for fun, then Rule of Cool applies. If you are doing it to gain higher LOS vantage point, it is MFA and is no different than crouching Wraithlord or underground Genestealers to hide behind ripper swarms. Not cool for tourney, or casual play as casual play shouldn't mean 'everyone cheats or exploits their opponents being nice'.

Modifying your grots to be taller or the ADL to be shorter or see through is like the guy who grinds up genestealers in a blender and glues them to the base as a pile of plastic rubble so they can have LOS blocked to them by ripper swarms.

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY

And this one is good... (when you Sneaky, It wins you games)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUxjS-wOxNY

This is what MFA is tantamount to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing allows you to put all the bastion bolters on the same side or move the slits. Doing so means the game ends.

Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

Because that would be ridiculous, and still wouldn't allow models to see through them unless they are lying down?

 insaniak wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Then why not just place the ADL upside-down, so the slits are near the bottom?

Because that would be ridiculous, and still wouldn't allow models to see through them unless they are lying down?

And when did we add rules for allowing models to sit however we wanted on the table? Can my Landraider stand on end to block LOS to flyers? Can my Flyer be upside down so all you can see is the base? Can I lay all my models on their sides to hide behind infantry?

This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

Wait..
The OP asked if it was MFA, which it clearly was, and because people dislikes the answer we are resorting to trolling for the last couple of pages?

"Hi, I am changing the model so I gain an advantage! Is that modelling for advantage?"
-YES!

*end thread*

nkelsch wrote:This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

No, I'd say my response was perfectly reasonable considering the hard line that's been taken towards throwing Rule of Cool out the window. My entire point is that there is not so distinct a difference between modelling for advantage, and personalizing something.

 azazel the cat wrote:

nkelsch wrote:This is all gamesmanship, which if you need to play a game like that, you have quit being casual friendly or Competitive. You have decided to "When you Sneaky, It wins you games" which means you have stopped being reasonable.

No, I'd say my response was perfectly reasonable considering the hard line that's been taken towards throwing Rule of Cool out the window. My entire point is that there is not so distinct a difference between modelling for advantage, and personalizing something.

Rule of cool doesn't allow in-game advantages. Rule of Cool allows non-standard models to be used, as long as people don't try to take advantage from them.

Rule of Cool never justifies in-game advantage, just leniency in allowing the model on the tabletop as long as the person is willing not to exploit the models for gain.

A custom Orky ADL is fine. A custom orky ADL which is shorter so models who cannot see over it the ability to see over it is not fine.

A Grot on a cinematic oilcan is fine. A Grot on a Cinematic oilcan where you try to give the grot higher LOS than he can normally see is not fine.

If you are modeling for advantage, you fail at rule of cool. To succeed at rule of cool, you must be willing to play it as if it was the stock model and not be doing the modeling for any advantage.

Why is it throwing rule of cool out the window?
Its just saying: model for prettiness all you want, but you play the model as stock so you dont get an advantage

Given the express intention of the OP is to model purely for advantage "rule of cool" has already been thrown out.

They arent doing it for ANY REASON but for advantage.

Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

I'd play against it (Casual s). Not our fault all four (The selection is endless!) point bought Forts. are modelled based on tall humanoids.

In a non tournament environment its just nice to reach a compromise - for example if your lowering it - cut down the length by a proportional amount.

Seriously though they should release a variety of models for these things, more options and give some love to the none marine armies. Pretty sure all races are able to construct defensive lines, of an appropriate height

blood lance wrote:
Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

They are interacting with it, by getting g'teed LOS blocking terrain

blood lance wrote:
Because heavens forbid the older codices be allowed to interact with new 6th edition stuff. Like cover. This should be FAQ'd. "Can models not actually tall enough to have LOS over the ADL model still be able to fire over it due to firing slits etc on the model?" Yes/No? Thank you.

Why should the ADL function differently to any other terrain piece in that regard?

What you've just described is the definition of modeling for advantage.

That being said, almost every single person I have played 40k with (even at GT's) generally follows "the rule of cool". So if your converted ADL looks awesome, generally people will not care. It is however your responsibility as an honest player to point out to your opponents that your conversion differs from the normal model and as such would technically disallow your Gretchin to shoot. If they don't care or it's just a friendly game 9 out of 10 times they will let you do it.

I would allow this to be used against me in any game outside of a large torment. (Though I would call you on it if you didn't tell me before the game started)

I this thread supposed to be going somewhere, or is it just another one designed to take MFA arguments to the ludicrous extremes?

There are a good deal of people on here who must be a real bear to play against, if they are as nit-picky as they come across online..

Pretty soon anything other than a stock pose will be damned as Modeling for Advantage, because someone somehow finds a way that the pose someone created wold benefit them in a certain situation. My Dire Avenger is holding his gun upright at his side? Obviously must be so I can hide him around corners, when the standard pose would have a hand and gun sticking out from behind the cover to be shot at.

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

 Nem wrote:

Seriously though they should release a variety of models for these things, more options and give some love to the none marine armies. Pretty sure all races are able to construct defensive lines, of an appropriate height

In the Ork case, "appropriate" would depend on whether you're talking about Squigs, Gretchin, Boyz, or Nobs. All these different species of fungi need their own heights of walls. And at this point in the game, you can't take an ADL that has several sections of varying heights. You get one choice, that's about human-sized.

Ratlings cannot see over the ADL, yet they are humanoid. For some reason, the Imperial Guard cannot construct defensive walls of an appropriate height for their own snipers! Gretchin aren't the only ones to suffer from the height of a particular piece of terrain.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

Because those short models can stand in open terrain, give taller models behind them Cover, while allowing the taller models to shoot over them for no cover. That is drastically different that a majority of other infantry in the game.

If a model is going to have such a huge advantage, then they are going to equally have to have disadvantages.

Grots screening boys with 1-way cover is a huge advantage. And it comes from being short. The same way we can hide grots behind stuff for zero LOS. You can't have it both ways.

And remember, just because you can 'see over' doesn't mean your opponent won't get cover. If a grot is exactly eye level with the top of the wall, then the opponent will have 50% cover as the grot won't be able to see the lower half of his opponent. A Infantryman has to be a good deal taller than the wall in order for his cone of vision to have no obstructions... so even if you were to MFA so the grots could see, there is a good chance that they would be forced to give anyone they shoot at a 4+ cover save.

Drilling small holes in a wall doesn't give unobstructed view, and while people like to play house rules that hugging the ADL gives one-way cover, the rules don't actually work that way.

For this to work takes multiple layers of ignoring the rules.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I this thread supposed to be going somewhere, or is it just another one designed to take MFA arguments to the ludicrous extremes?

There are a good deal of people on here who must be a real bear to play against, if they are as nit-picky as they come across online..

Pretty soon anything other than a stock pose will be damned as Modeling for Advantage, because someone somehow finds a way that the pose someone created wold benefit them in a certain situation. My Dire Avenger is holding his gun upright at his side? Obviously must be so I can hide him around corners, when the standard pose would have a hand and gun sticking out from behind the cover to be shot at.

Like some rational people have said before, just allow short models like Grots and Ratlings to somehow be "positioning themselves to be firing over the ADL" which in turn obviously allows them to be fired upon in turn, like other models. How that equates to pretending they have ladders and/or spring-boots so they can pop up and fire over the top of a Land Raider while simultaneously getting cover from it is beyond me.

I sympathize with this, because my entire army is currently count-as, so doesn't have any of the proper dimensions of the stock models. But I made the effort to make sure all my count-as models have the correct base size. I also converted my own ADL, but not to gain any advantage, I just didn't want my Xenos using Imperial technology. I didn't measure the official ADL to make my version, because I didn't buy it.

I know this is a RAW forum, but there should also be a discussion about reasonable allowance. We all know a lower ADL for Grots is modeling for advantage, but whether that is legal or not, or allowed or not, is what has kept this discussion going. Every RAW discussion on this site ends up being about 50/50, but all the RAW players post on it so it's not a fair assessment of what is actually out there in the gaming world. They're usually tournament-goers, and they like to quote RAW, while conveniently forgetting that a tournament game that is called in the third or fourth turn due to time restrictions is actually a breach of the game rules.

That's why I said make your converted Ork defense line. If you're not trying to win any major tournament, there is a very high chance that no one will care. It's not 100%, however, but, then again, it's not a 100% chance that you will walk out your front door tomorrow and not get kicked in the bollocks by David Bowie.

I and my friends have never had an issue with our ADLs... This kind of behavior preventing certain models from even using said terrain as what it was supposed to be used for (A simply cover save if you were behind it) Disturbs me and makes me rather sad a thread like this went on for 6 pages :(


Honestly... It's a DL... You shoot through it and things get shot through it in return... Thats like saying if you have custom forests and bushes on your board, 1 leaf, 1 twig specifically blocking 1 models eyesight from his target completely negates that models ability to fire at all...

GoliothOnline wrote:
I and my friends have never had an issue with our ADLs... This kind of behavior preventing certain models from even using said terrain as what it was supposed to be used for (A simply cover save if you were behind it) Disturbs me and makes me rather sad a thread like this went on for 6 pages :(


Honestly... It's a DL... You shoot through it and things get shot through it in return... Thats like saying if you have custom forests and bushes on your board, 1 leaf, 1 twig specifically blocking 1 models eyesight from his target completely negates that models ability to fire at all...

Actually, you shoot 'over' it. It is not area terrain. It uses true LOS like any other form of terrain. And in your tree example, if the tree blocks his entire sight, he can;t fire, if he can see even a little bit, he can fire, but his opponent gets Cover.

What you want is for models to see throught errain with no LOS, shoot opponents, and those opponents get ZERO cover. That is not supported by the rules at all. ADL is not one way cover.

Because those short models can stand in open terrain, give taller models behind them Cover, while allowing the taller models to shoot over them for no cover. That is drastically different that a majority of other infantry in the game.

If a model is going to have such a huge advantage, then they are going to equally have to have disadvantages.

Grots screening boys with 1-way cover is a huge advantage. And it comes from being short. The same way we can hide grots behind stuff for zero LOS. You can't have it both ways.

And remember, just because you can 'see over' doesn't mean your opponent won't get cover. If a grot is exactly eye level with the top of the wall, then the opponent will have 50% cover as the grot won't be able to see the lower half of his opponent. A Infantryman has to be a good deal taller than the wall in order for his cone of vision to have no obstructions... so even if you were to MFA so the grots could see, there is a good chance that they would be forced to give anyone they shoot at a 4+ cover save.

Ok....but now explain why prone Vostroyan weapons teams, kneeling Cadian/Catachan weapons teams, kneeling individual figures including Imperial Guard, Space Marines, and metal IG Snipers, lying-prone Catachan sniper models (versus normal standing Sniper models available in the same package), Ratling Snipers, etc, all are unable to use an ADL if people want to lawyer-up about how "true line of sight" stops them from seeing over the stock ADL model. When designing the ADL, did GW by design seriously intend to specifically stop such units from firing from behind it?

I'm guessing "no".

"True line of sight" is absolutely stupid because it makes threads like this possible.