Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:08:54
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
AegisGrimm wrote: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.
There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?
When designing the ADL, did GW by design seriously intend to specifically stop such units from firing from behind it?
Whether or not they intended to, they made it the size they did.
You could as easily ask if they intended to block the LOS from these models when placed on the roof of their imperial city terrain. But ultimately, what they intended is largely irrelevant. We have a set of rules that uses LOS from the actual model as placed on the table, and grants cover or blocks LOS based on the actual dimensions of the terrain in the way.
So yes, it will make a difference whether you are using a model that is standing or kneeling. This isn't some new thing with 6th edition... it's the way LOS has worked in 40K since Rogue Trader.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:12:54
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA
|
There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?
So then without being guilty of Modeling for Advantage, no one can use Imperial Guard Vostroyan or some other Heavy weapons teams from behind an Aegis Defense Line.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/15 23:15:22
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:17:09
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
AegisGrimm wrote:There is no 'lawyering' involved here. Those models will be similarly unable to see over any other terrain that is tall enough to block their LOS. Again, why should the ADL be treated any differently in that regard?
So then without being guilty of Modeling for Advantage, no one can use Imperial Guard Heavy weapons teams from behind an Aegis Defense Line.
Well there are some that can be used, as some have one guy standing erect next to the dude manning the gun.
But yes some of them will not be able to see over the ADL, or similarly any terrain that is taller than the actual model used in the HWT.
Some HWT's will not be able to draw Line of Sight over the ADL, and some will.
It is really an issue with GW's True Line of Sight system coupled with the fact that sometimes models that represent the same thing on the table are modeled in a drastically different manner.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:20:57
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA
|
Well there are some that can be used, as some have one guy standing erect next to the dude manning the gun.
But the gunner and the barrel of the gun won't clear the terrain. A kneeling Cadian missile launcher cannot fire, but an old metal Tallarn or Mordian Guard can. Though they represent the same thing on the table.
It is really an issue with GW's True Line of Sight system coupled with the fact that sometimes models that represent the same thing on the table are modeled in a drastically different manner.
Exactly. Their system seems almost designed to provoke arguments, with the way they support it with their own models. It's dumb.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/15 23:21:30
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:37:29
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
Why don't you just put holes in the line, like where the grots would stick their gun barrels through. That would coun't as probably being able to see the grots, if the holes are large enough, and they can shoot. Anyways, if you want to shorten the line, me and most gamers I know wouldn't care at all about it. (unless its a big tourney) They are GROTS after all people. Thats actually more of a disadvantage, because now bigger troopers are exposed and only the little squishy ones are protected (if you do even put any big troops inside the line). But in a big GW tourney, yes, this may be modeling for advantage. But when you think about it, that is usually only in large or fancy tournaments that they have a problem with it, and in those same type of tourneys, they will expect you to have an actualy adl (orkified of course) but still the GW model. So unless you're going to a tourney where you know the rules will be strict, why even bother?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/15 23:39:49
DC:80+S+++GM+B++IPw40k08++D++A+++/hWD346R++T(M)DM+ Successful trades with Tweems, Polonius, Porkuslime, Mark94656, TheCupcakeCowboy, MarshalMathis, and Hahnjoelo
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:40:37
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA
|
Why don't you just put holes in the line, like where the grots would stick their gun barrels through.
Already been shot down as MFA and "claimed" to be illegal in the rules.
I think it would be funny to have an Ork ADL with a special lower tier of firing slits for Grots below the ones for the "real" Boyz. Then paint slogans like "Shoot here Humiez" with arrows pointing to the "Grot slits".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/15 23:42:55
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/15 23:55:06
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
|
I thought MFA was frowned upon. Does it say MFA is illegal in the rules?
|
01001000 01101001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 00:23:34
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Stealthy Grot Snipa
|
I think the thing here is this:
OP desires to make a scratch built ADS. Is he allowed to make it as he wants? YES, no one told Van Gogh how to paint, and look where he is at?
What about those Scratch-built tau bastions or scratch-built ruins or scratch-built anythings? Are those illegal too?
It is like saying: "Oh you are trying to make a hobbit house. Oh no! it has shorter windows. YOU ARE A TOOL FOR MAKING YOUR OWN STUFF."
I believe that you can make your own custom ADS line how you like. I mean, it is not like you are making a fifty-foot tall one so you can hide a freakin reaver titan, it just so happens that your pile of junk is not as tall as its cousin. What if this OP is totally poor and cannot afford enough bits to build his walls to be exactly the height of the box-set ones? Are you going to penalize him for making it with what he had? (I doubt this guy cannot afford it, but I am just throwing in the sort of ordeal for though)
Ranting having been finished, I think the excuse of "Game flaw" is totally invalid, but the whole idea that it is scratch-built and a minor little tweak-thing is perfectly fine to me. I would let you use it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 00:28:44
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
|
I think most would. Some just seem to be caught up on the rules issues. Not that their not important but I think sometimes the fluff needs to be considered. It doesn't give measurements for exact heights of the weapon slots so you should be able to put them where you want for what ever race your playing. Rem we got into 40k for the cool sci-fi battles. The different aegis lines help that sense of realism - it doesn't hurt it.
I especially like the race specific made items that fit the fluff instead of every race using imperial terrain.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 00:32:41
01001000 01101001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 00:54:10
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
There is only specifications in the ADL rules for lengths of the sections, not height.
Alternatively you could always model a firing step into it or its base; if you base it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 00:55:32
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
But the difference is Eldar, Tau, Imperial guard, Orks, Nids, space marines, chaos, all have a majority of their stock models can see over the stock ADL. So even if you do a custom ADL, you are not gaining an advantage.
If you made a custom ADl which matched the dimensions of the stock, but themed it up, your grots would STILL have zero LOS, or at best, be unable to see totally over the wall which means people they shoot at get cover.
Why should people get advantages not paid for by points and require modifications of models in order to make the rules to work differently?
This is no different than grinding up Genestealers and gluing model gravel to a base and saying 'it is a genestealer model technically, No LOS to my models!'
All these people who want to cheat are the ones caught up in the rules... if you really wanted to model for fun, then you would have no problem following the rules and not getting an undeserved advantage by exploiting a conversion. If you are trying to be 'why you being so strict' then why you trying to exploit the rules? Accept grots are too short to use an ADL in 100% of circumstances and try a different tactic.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 01:24:42
Subject: Re:Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
AegisGrimm wrote:But the gunner and the barrel of the gun won't clear the terrain. A kneeling Cadian missile launcher cannot fire, but an old metal Tallarn or Mordian Guard can. Though they represent the same thing on the table.
That's correct.
Although where the barrel of the gun is makes no difference. You only need LOS from the firer, not the gun.
Exactly. Their system seems almost designed to provoke arguments, with the way they support it with their own models. It's dumb.
It solves more arguments that it creates, because you just use the model exactly as it sits on the table. SO both players can easily get down and see what is what.
You get more arguments when you start abstracting the process and pretending that the model is in a different position to where it actually is, since that requires both players to agree on an imaginary position.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 01:31:03
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge
|
There was a rule back in 5th ed, don't know if it's still around since I avoid gaming in tournaments (so that I can model the way I like) with my 'friendly' converted army.. But it was something like
"If said conversion causes problems with cover/ LOS remove model and place an original GW model of the unit in the same position" which is hilarious since we're still waiting (years and years) for some pretty major models.
*cough*SPOREPOD*cough*
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 01:45:48
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Spazamataz wrote:There was a rule back in 5th ed, don't know if it's still around since I avoid gaming in tournaments (so that I can model the way I like) with my 'friendly' converted army.. But it was something like
"If said conversion causes problems with cover/ LOS remove model and place an original GW model of the unit in the same position" which is hilarious since we're still waiting (years and years) for some pretty major models.
*cough*SPOREPOD*cough*
That may have been a tournie rule, but was never in the rulebook.
I've seen similar rules in tournament packages from time to time. There was a local one just recently that imposed a rule that players who wanted to use conversions or non-standard models should have the original model on hand in case there were any issues. Not really a fan, to be honest... all that enforcing that sort of rule does is discourage people from using conversions. Or entering in the first place.
Unless someone is really taking the micky, it's easier to just use the model you have, as is, and get on with the game. We have so many examples of models significantly changing size (Eldar Avatar, Trukks, Battlewagons, Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, pretty much every Tyranid creature ever made, Daemon Princes, Mega-armoured Orks, Sentinels... it goes on) or having different LOS profiles depending on how they are assembled that it does seem like GW aren't overly concerned with the differences in the game that such things create.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 01:56:59
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
nkelsch wrote:But the difference is Eldar, Tau, Imperial guard, Orks, Nids, space marines, chaos, all have a majority of their stock models can see over the stock ADL. So even if you do a custom ADL, you are not gaining an advantage.
If you made a custom ADl which matched the dimensions of the stock, but themed it up, your grots would STILL have zero LOS, or at best, be unable to see totally over the wall which means people they shoot at get cover.
Why should people get advantages not paid for by points and require modifications of models in order to make the rules to work differently?
This is no different than grinding up Genestealers and gluing model gravel to a base and saying 'it is a genestealer model technically, No LOS to my models!'
All these people who want to cheat are the ones caught up in the rules... if you really wanted to model for fun, then you would have no problem following the rules and not getting an undeserved advantage by exploiting a conversion. If you are trying to be 'why you being so strict' then why you trying to exploit the rules? Accept grots are too short to use an ADL in 100% of circumstances and try a different tactic.
But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step. Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm). We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison. A Genestealer must be roughly man sized (28mm, give or take a few mm), not 3 millimeters off the base. Let alone must be clearly identifiable as a Genestealer.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:01:49
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Bausk wrote:But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step.
The dimsensions for the ADL are defined by the model. Which doesn't have a fire step.
Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm).
Neither of those things are true.
Reducing the height of the ADL allows models to see over it that otherwise couldn't, and reduces the amount of cover it provides.
A stooping model will be less able to see over obstacles than an identical model standing on a rock, and will be easier to hide behind obstructions.
We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison.
On a model that is 30mm tall, differences of millimetres can be significant...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:05:31
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
@Bausk: Although I agree with you that you should be able to modify the height of an ADL and that this should not be considered MFA; I disagree with the reasoning. There are almost no written dimensions on any models with regards to height. I believe the building rules state something like 3" for various floors, but that's about it. Taking your line of reasoning, cutting the legs off of a crisis suit would be acceptable... My reasoning that it's not MFA is simply because it gives a disadvantage as well. The situation is that although the grots can shoot, they can also be shot. It goes both ways. By the same token I have no issues with modeling units on top of scenic bases (like rocks). Yes, they can now see over more things, but they can also be seen (eg: shot) by more enemy units. A couple weeks ago someone asked if it would be MFA to lay a tau suit it's side and glue it to the base. I said go for it because quite frankly although it would be easier to hide it, it would also be unable to shoot most things on the battlefield. I've also seen someone claiming kneeling Firewarriors was MFA because they could "see under tanks".. I own a lot of tanks, kneeling models would be hard pressed to see under any of them; but would still prevent them from seeing a lot more. I think a lot of people forget that changing *anything* on a model typically has as many disadvantages as advantages; this is part of what's great about measuring from the eyes. Whether that is using a larger base size (40 vs 25mm), different heights or whatever. The last point I want to make is simply that MFA does not exist in the rule book; which, ostensibly, is what this forum is about. There isn't a RAW issue with it. Tournament wise though is a radically different thing.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 02:15:50
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:21:16
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
insaniak wrote: Bausk wrote:But the difference is there are no set dimensions of height for a Defense Line, there are no set features that preclude a fire step.
The dimsensions for the ADL are defined by the model. Which doesn't have a fire step.
Making a slight reduction in in the height will make no difference to the way it works just as a stooped model (25mm) works just the same as a model standing tall on a rock (30mm).
Neither of those things are true.
Reducing the height of the ADL allows models to see over it that otherwise couldn't, and reduces the amount of cover it provides.
A stooping model will be less able to see over obstacles than an identical model standing on a rock, and will be easier to hide behind obstructions.
We are talking differences in millimeters, not centimeters as with your comparison.
On a model that is 30mm tall, differences of millimetres can be significant...
Models can be altered and customized or even built from scratch. You could add armoured plates that increase the height in sections, spikes or even cut it up and glue it back together all jagged with bits bolted together. It changes nothing about the models rules work. The dimensions are subjective beyond the length of the sections.
Both are true, game mechanic wise. Assume they are both space marines, both have the same stats, weapons etc The only difference is LoS which is based on the model, which is typically a few millimeters even without conversions. The point is they are the same regardless of modeling, just as altering or scratch building a ADL would be the same.
+2mm is pretty much a standard of most decorative basing using slate. Arguing +2mm to be significant by comparison to -25mm is a bit silly. But yes I'd agree if we were talking +4-5mm or more. But then again there are even some GW models like some jump packers that have that much added due to dramatic posing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:23:17
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
The ruleset is permissive. The rulebook doesn't allow you to modify your models... By your definition, the gene stealer ground up into gravel and glued to a base is "legal"
We are only given permission to use official citadel models.
A custom ADL or modified grot doesn't fall under that and requires opponents permission. If you are doing it for advantage, the game never happens.
And this " every advantage has a disadvantage" is a boldface dishonest lie. Not only are not every change in a model have equal advantages or disadvantages, but us being smart primates explicitly know how to maximize advantages and mitigate disadvantages. Your grots are taller and can be seen? You really going to deploy them in such a way where you will find yourself going " oh man, I got hit by a disadvantage, normally they could hide"
No, you are going to deploy them in such a way you have 100% advantage and none of the drawbacks. That is why you are doing it.
And any model shooting through a slit on an ADL will give cover to the target unit. So arguing grots can see the slits and somehow get one way cover doesn't work.
You have to ignore the ADL rules, cover rules, Los rules and modify your models for it to work. Where I come from, that is called cheating. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bausk wrote:
Models can be altered and customized or even built from scratch.
page number for that rule please. Permissive ruleset.
Otherwise, gravel gene stealer is legal in all situations which is absurd.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/16 02:26:06
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:30:11
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
nkelsch wrote:The ruleset is permissive. The rulebook doesn't allow you to modify your models... By your definition, the gene stealer ground up into gravel and glued to a base is "legal"
We aren't given permission to glue them together. So I guess just throwing model parts on top of a base is the way to go. Hope they don't fall off... unless you have a page number and paragraph for the rule telling you how to assemble them? nkelsch wrote: We are only given permission to use official citadel models.
This would screw with a TON of armies as there simply AREN'T official models for lots of things. Making matters worse is the simple fact that there is a ton of wargear that has zero model representation or simply doesn't ship with the model in question. nkelsch wrote: A custom ADL or modified grot doesn't fall under that and requires opponents permission. If you are doing it for advantage, the game never happens.
Depends on who you are playing nkelsch wrote: And this " every advantage has a disadvantage" is a boldface dishonest lie. Not only are not every change in a model have equal advantages or disadvantages, but us being smart primates explicitly know how to maximize advantages and mitigate disadvantages. Your grots are taller and can be seen? You really going to deploy them in such a way where you will find yourself going " oh man, I got hit by a disadvantage, normally they could hide" No, you are going to deploy them in such a way you have 100% advantage and none of the drawbacks. That is why you are doing it. And any model shooting through a slit on an ADL will give cover to the target unit. So arguing grots can see the slits and somehow get one way cover doesn't work. You have to ignore the ADL rules, cover rules, Los rules and modify your models for it to work. Where I come from, that is called cheating. You sir need to calm down and read the rules for YMDC. Specifically #5 is important. Regarding the "slit" granting cover to the target, please cite pg and paragraph. By all means ignore the grots under discussion as there are other models that can see through those slits and not be seen without changing the height of the ADL or letting the model stand on something.
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 03:04:05
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 02:40:24
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%.
Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed.
The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover.
Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover?
Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 02:51:26
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 03:01:11
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
nkelsch wrote:Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%. Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed. The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover. Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover? Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL. I don't need to cite anything regarding "one way cover". Cover is determined by 25% or more of the target model being blocked from True LOS as determined from the firers eyeballs. Models that, as shipped, could see through the slit (found in 30 seconds): http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135 http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070138 http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440176a&prodId=prod1060078 You'll note that each of those kits have models kneeling. Words like "most" and "large chance" do not preclude the ability of having an unobstructed view from one point but not another. Quite frankly this is no different than if the firing model is shooting from a window in a ruin (or other terrain) which obscures 25% or more of it while providing a clear target. This is a very common occurrence in games and quite frankly one of the reasons why you put models in cover to begin with. That said, Orks and "stock marines" aren't the only models in the game.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 03:05:16
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 03:10:08
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
|
I still totally disagree. When they don't give you a model for your race I have no problem w/ a custom wall that Grots or who ever would be using. I think it goes against the spirit and essence or 40k to make everyone use the same aegis. Peoples custom models are the one thing I love about this game.
The ground up genestealer is just silly. if his torso was in that many pieces he'd be dead. If you want to field one of your models already dead go ahead but he is dead and now scenery.
I have seen Mawlocs bursting thru the ground at half the regular height of a regular Mawloc, Waith Lords Kneeling, and a whole group of Tau modeled in a prone firing position.
The only one I would disallow is the mawloc b/c you didn't use the whole model only pieces. MFA is it written into the rules somewhere? I only see you have to use an official games workshop model. Couldn't I use a whole army of this Genestealer and it be legal?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/59925-Burst%2C%20Genestealer%2C%20Space%20Hulk.html
That seems cheesy but within the rules.
______________________________________________
This below makes the game for me it doesn't ruin it.
http://spyrle.blogspot.com/2012/10/eldar-aegis-defense-line-protoype-is-up.html
or the orc one:
http://forums.bluegrassgamers.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6783
Grots could use that one and it looks like they would. You would tell someone no even tho it looks orcy and even looks like something the Grots built?
|
01001000 01101001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 03:17:26
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
clively wrote:nkelsch wrote:Shooting over an ADL is unobstructed view. Shooting through a slit is interviewing cover, and no model would be able to See an entire model because the slit obstructs the cone of vision and would make it able to block 25%.
Same as a model exactly eye level of the top of the ADL. The target model would be obstructed.
The only way ADL one way cover works is when you have a clear unobstructed view from the eyes of the model over the ADL. If the ADL blocks 25% then the target gets cover. Which the slit does for 100% of models because every model has to be at least 3-4mm back from the slit and is never exactly slit height. You get LOS, your target gets cover.
Please cite where ADL ignore the rules for LOS and proved free one-way cover?
Stock marines and orks when behind the ADL, their eyes are above the slit. Therefor, they only can see at a downward angle which means if they see anything, there is a large chance that the model will be obstructed. You would have to model most 28mm infantry to be crouching and leaning forward on the base so the eyes are close to the wall in order to be close enough to see through the slit unobstructed. Or stand an inch to the side and see over the ADL.
I don't need to cite anything regarding "one way cover". Cover is determined by 25% or more of the target model being blocked from True LOS as determined from the firers eyeballs.
Models that, as shipped, could see through the slit (found in 30 seconds):
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070135
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod1070138
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440176a&prodId=prod1060078
You'll note that each of those kits have models kneeling.
Words like "most" and "large chance" do not preclude the ability of having an unobstructed view from one point but not another. Quite frankly this is no different than if the firing model is shooting from a window in a ruin (or other terrain) which obscures 25% or more of it while providing a clear target. This is a very common occurrence in games and quite frankly one of the reasons why you put models in cover to begin with. That said, Orks and "stock marines" aren't the only models in the game.
see through the slit and see 75% of the target model are not the same. Basic geometry shows that models looking through the slit, farther back they are, the more obstructed their view is. Taller or shorter models have more obstructed views. Unless the model is leaning forward where the eyes are touching the wall and exactly eye height to the slit, they will have obstructed views.
If you are firing through the slit, your models won't have an unobstructed view the same way looking over the ADL does.
But I guess you could battle damage your ADL so all the slits have the top blown off so they become easy to see over?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Grots can build an ADL... They just can't see over it.
Provide the page which allows you to make a custom ADL or modified grot. The rules don't allow it, it requires opponents permission for the game to take place, and people who MFA, the game doesn't take place.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/16 03:20:02
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 03:25:09
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Doesn't the fortification section in the rulebook cover the issue of them all being imperial?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 04:15:12
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
@nkelsch: So, you are agreeing that there is not a RAW rule declaring that a target unit always receives a cover save due to the firer model looking through the slits? Even using geometry, you would have to agree that there are lines of sight and distances involved that would allow a target model to be 100% in view while the firer is looking through that slit. Basic geometry as you say. If you disagree, please cite. You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is " MFA".. You should also agree there is zero rule in the little rule book governing how a model is assembled, or even that it is. All we have is a statement to put the model on the base it comes with. If you disagree, please cite pg. Which means that we only have a few sources to go by, none of which are RAW. The model instructions, if it has them the vast majority don't, and the Modeling section in the full BRB and codexes showing how numerous models are put together. All of which have been described by a majority of people as "not rules". Next up, there is zero statement in the little rule book covering the words "modeling for advantage" or any such nonsense. Again, please cite any disagreement. Whereas we have considerable support for modeling in the modeling section of the BRB. Yes, those are not "rules" but it's the closest we'll ever come as they are in the official full rule book itself. Incidentally, the entire concept of there only being one way to assemble a model is a small step away from stating there is only one way for any particular model to be painted; which I hope no one here would advocate. What are we left with? We know numerous tournaments have the concept of MFA, which is not RAW, and tournament rules or HIWPI have no bearing here. From this alone the OP's question should simply not be directed to this forum but rather to the play group/tournament (s)he wishes to attend. Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL as a back "wall" (ie: out of the way). In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked. RAW satisfied as well as can be, we can look at RAI. We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak. With regards to "providing a page that allows you to make a custom ADL or grot" the retort is simply for you to provide a page in the RULES section that shows how these models are supposed to be assembled. Getting to the "permissive" statement, you can't. So we have to go further, which means the modeling section, which means we see custom miniatures on a lot of pages. Going even further with intent we have GW repeatedly stating it's about the hobby and show casing conversions both in game and in their modeling sections of the white dwarf. For all intents and purposes this "hobby" is about modeling first, gaming second: per GW. HIWPI should be obvious.
|
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2013/04/16 04:29:26
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 04:18:28
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.
|
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 04:22:59
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
BryllCream wrote:I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.
I don't think anyone has said that a squad shooting from an ADL could not be shot in return. If I can see you to shoot then it should be obvious that you can see the relevant part of my body (head in this case) to return fire.
|
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 04:29:13
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
clively wrote:You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is " MFA"..
Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".
Next up, there is zero statement in the little rule book covering the words "modeling for advantage" or any such nonsense. Again, please cite any disagreement. Whereas we have considerable support for modeling in the modeling section of the BRB. Yes, those are not "rules" but it's the closest we'll ever come as they are in the official full rule book itself.
MFA has only ever been a player convention.
We know numerous tournaments have the concept of MFA, which is not RAW, and tournament rules or HIWPI have no bearing here. From this alone the OP's question should simply not be directed to this forum but rather to the play group/tournament (s)he wishes to attend.
That's absolutely not true. It's been covered that there are no rules relating to MFA. However this forum does allow for HYWPI discussions.
Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL out of the way. In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked.
Sure. But models behind the custom terrain don't get +2 cover save from a GTG and it won't have a nifty gun attached to it.
We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak.
Yeah, it's cool to pretend that divining intent requires the big rule book instead of the small one.
Ignoring that, no one has said that conversions are bad. But conversions that change how a model is played are bad. Automatically Appended Next Post: clively wrote: BryllCream wrote:I always thought it was assumed that a squad behind an ADL could see everything in front of it, and in return could be shot at. Otherewise the whole thing is open to absurdity and abuse.
I don't think anyone has said that a squad shooting from an ADL could not be shot in return. If I can see you to shoot then it should be obvious that you can see the relevant part of my body (head in this case) to return fire.
Not always true - yes, for infantry models its correct but its not true for vehicles.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/16 04:32:35
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/04/16 04:41:43
Subject: Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
clively wrote:You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is " MFA"..
Uh, being a Citadel Miniature doesn't make it a 40K miniature... Otherwise, it would be legal to use, say, Epic Whirlwinds to make them easier to hide behind terrain...
|
|
|
 |
 |
|