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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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".

Are you saying that you cannot use an existing GW model to represent that exact same model on the board because it gives you some advantage? Really? That's the model.. GW makes no representation on which box I buy one of their models from, just that I need to use a Citadel model. That genestealer is citadel per description.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
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.

If the ADL is the "back wall" of the custom terrain, you could certainly have your gun be as attached as you want. I'm even going to agree that the gun has to be touching that back wall. Of course, I could also blow your mind by gluing the ADL in a stacked position such that it only takes up about 6" of horizontal space while being around 4" deep and be a complete "back wall" as the pieces are "chained together", which is perfectly valid. Either way, I'll grant the custom terrain wouldn't get an additional cover bonus. Whether it's "purpose built" (3+) or not may be open for discussion though; I haven't seen a real definition of that yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
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.

I've shown how existing models from GW standing next to the actual imperial ADL break his reasoning for not allowing it. I've covered RAW because that was the primary argument against. I think I've made a good argument tearing that up. Now we're into HYWPI and that's a whole different discussion, which could certainly be handled by a poll.

I can see both sides of this one. Honestly I think you're going to have to ask your friends and make that call with them. If they're ok with it then I'd say do it. That being said, I understand some people getting upset if you've given a unit a bonus they normally wouldn't be able to get had you used the official model. I'd let you do it and I think most friendly gamers would too, but tournament wise there's no way, and if your opponent's set against it I'd say you're going to have to be the one to give in.

 insaniak wrote:

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...

RAW. Ask GW to FAQ it. If we say "40k" only then we leave out most of the Chaos Daemons models as they are from another game.

Of course, common sense should step in. The point of my entire diatribe is simply that RAW (as being argued vehemently by one side here, when they really should have been saying "HIWPI") doesn't apply; and reasonable conversions should be allowed. Including what the OP proposed: a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

clively 520034 5509767 nul wrote:RAW. Ask GW to FAQ it.

There's really no need...


Daemons are branded for both 40K and WHFB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
Of course, common sense should step in. Like it should in allowing a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

You're going to continue to get disagreement on that one.

Modelling a custom ADL so that you have an Orky one is fine. Changing the model specifically to give yourself better fire lanes from it? That's going to get people riled up.

clively wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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".

Are you saying that you cannot use an existing GW model to represent that exact same model on the board because it gives you some advantage? Really? That's the model.. GW makes no representation on which box I buy one of their models from, just that I need to use a Citadel model. That genestealer is citadel per description.

Sure - use it. It looks cool.
Oh, you refuse to pretend that it's a normal Genestealer size? You've lost rule of cool and are now in MFA territory. Especially if you have your entire army made from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
Of course, common sense should step in. The point of my entire diatribe is simply that RAW (as being argued vehemently by one side here, when they really should have been saying "HIWPI") doesn't apply; and reasonable conversions should be allowed. Including what the OP proposed: a custom built ADL that's only a few mm shorter, allowing grots to shoot (and be shot at) from behind it.

Any miniature that has been modified to gain an in-game advantage (and not just because it looks cool) is not a "reasonable conversion" and should not be accepted.

Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA.

Complaining that an ADL that is 3mm shorter (or grots 3mm taller) is 'modelling for advantage' is ridiculous in light of all the hundreds of examples of legitimate GW models which take advantage of the rules.
I have a friend who runs a 2nd edition Hive Tyrant in his army. Why? Because it's only marginally bigger than Warriors and so gets a cover save from everything.

There are tons of kneeling/prone models which are exchangeable for non-prone versions of the same. Equipped identically. So I can build an entire Firewarrior unit of kneeling models, with an entire Firewarrior unit of standing models behind them; for the express purpose that the standing models are able to see over the kneeling ones; and this is somehow not modelling for advantage simply because I'm using the legit models?
There are even some models which the pose can be changed mid-game - say turret mounted weapons, doors which can be opened etc. How is it ok that I can turn a gun barrel mid game so that it obscures some model, but a grot on a scenic base is against the rules?

Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

@rigeld2: what defines stock models?

More to the point, according to you I can't field 5 kneeling scouts or 5 prone snipers. All of which are GW models currently purchasable from their site.

How in the world is your position justified?

rigeld2 wrote:
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".

Not necessarily. Refusing to count them as different models also keeps the game a heck of a lot easier to play.

If you have an issue with the models your opponent is using, don't play them. Don't mess about pretending that models are something that they aren't.

rigeld2 wrote:

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".

1-Why would he have to count them as normal for shooting purposes if they are out of LOS?
2-What about those Pathfinders with Rail Rifles or the IG snipers that are all crouched or prone? Do they have to be assumed as standing all the time? To me, that would be one confusing game.
3-Does it just have to be about advantage? Couldn't he be modelling all his Genies kneeling/Prone/Whatever because he is making an army themed around sneaky-genies infiltrating an imperial installation? Therefore "Rule of Cool" applies

I think everyone is getting so caught up in that GW made a model, that is themed for a handful of imperial armies, so therefore it is now the law. We would not be having this huge argument if Games-Workshop never made an ADS model for the Imperium, because nobody has a problem with scratch-built mycetic spores, flash gitz, looted wagons, etc. And I can think of some EVIL ways to MFA those models with a good enough cover story that allows it to follow the "rulings of cool".

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

I do not think you would have to ask him to not use it., MCs cannot get cover from infantry anyways right?

 Da Kommizzar wrote:

3-Does it just have to be about advantage? Couldn't he be modelling all his Genies kneeling/Prone/Whatever because he is making an army themed around sneaky-genies infiltrating an imperial installation? Therefore "Rule of Cool" applies

"Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." (Rig said this).

The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Come to think of it, ADL isn't even a model, its terrain or should I say Citadel Scenery. Page 90 states that 'Many of the terrain pieces in the Citadel Scenery range have rules that apply to them'. Also page 90 implies that the BRB will most likely have rules to cover any other scenery in our collection. Also there are no rules that directly deal with how a model is modeled; aside from basing on page 3 and LoS on page 8. Of those two we only need to: 1) Ensure the model represented is on the right base if possible 2) if the model is being targeted only is being seen to its main body (head, torso, arms and/or legs).

Modeling isn't a part of the rules for a reason; it doesn't need to be. There nothing to say old mate can't have his "gravelstealer", provided we can clearly see a main body in those ground up bits. Sure I doubt anyone would seriously play against the Bit-i-nids army, but if that's how he wants his model then we can't stop him. If someone wanted to MFA their whole army to be able to be 25% covered by an ADL and have LoS, nothings stopping them. Its not against the rules, but again this is likely to result in less people willing to play against them.

As stated MFA, or rather its interpretation, is a convention and not a rule. Its subjective and very grey. I personally like making models in all different ways. I like to keep to the general size of the model I'm representing though, for an example I use crouched cadian models as ratling snipers. I hate the ratling models and dont have any crouched cadian snipers anywhere else in my army, they even use a specific head to make them stand out more. The models I use are aproximatly the same size as ratlings, are unique to the rest of my army and easily identifiable as different to a standard cadian. Am I MFA or just modeling while keeping as close to the size of what I'm trying to represent?

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

OP here

Haven't read this thread since like page five, because as numerous individuals have stated, this whole argument is pretty pointless.

I'll just use the ADL as I like against opponents who are ok with it, avoid opponents who are not ok with it, and see what the TO says for any given tournament.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

So if I assume your wrong without requiring you to be wrong you're wrong? lol

Also if I use my custom made 90% GW green stuff made model with a Citadel head and weapons that counts right? lol

But again, there are no rules covering MFA or modeling other that my previous post. So bringing up what is and what is not in the BRB's permissive rule set is irrelevant. This simply becomes what is acceptable to you as far as modeling is concerned.

And to me I'm happy with anything that's clearly playable as a model that its intended to represent, case and point my 'ratlings'. I'm not going to argue with someone over a millimeter or two up or down on a every other model. If the whole army is 'short hulk stealers' then I'd say that's going a bit far and just not play that person.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
People disagreeing with you does not make them rules lawyers.

Please remember rule 1

There is no rule in the rulebook allowing you to alter the supplied citadel miniature. Basic rules. Most people accept ruloe of cool but with modelling for advantage thrown in - and this is clearly the latter.

As a TO we always have the rule that converted models are assumed to be the standard model for LOS purposes, so people can make cool models b ut without being penalised or gaining advantage from this.

On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

find it and i shall agree. until then if it is a friendly games then it can be done


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The BRB assumes we are using citadel models, not requires.

Which amounts to the same thing.

If the rules are designed for Citadel miniatures, using other miniatures is going to wind up with situations the rules were not designed to deal with.

Seeing as this is clearly a MFA thread and we have established that MFA is not a rules discussion should it really be in YMDC?

It's not exactly a rules issue, but it is a 'playing the game' issue, and YMDC is still the best place for that.

where do you get your information the rules are designed soley for citadel miniatures? because i fail to see where it'd come from beside apparent lax in knowledge. the rules don't cover every given situation. that is where "house rules" come into effect. generally a d6 decides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
they [the games developers/writers] allow for certain level of customisation. many miniatures even citadel are MFA. how many of you are guilty of one of these following things:
1. made your own custom rules?
2. customised a miniature?

i am betting everyone [that isn't a new guy] has tried to enhance their gameplay by introducing certain house rules into the game or a different miniature ie a stand in proxy. however many could point out that although it is a legal ingame mechanic, rules do not cover the "unknown element" ie house rules. A custom model ie a champion could be MFA, however would you consider scenic bases to be modelled to advantage? no you wouldn't [as that is a legal and also a vital part of game mechanics from an aesthetic pov, as is painting your figures] from a rules pov it is only MFA if used by something else and it is considered the same thing. ie something taller. if Gw models a smaller ADL for smaller friendlies then it'd not be an issue, but because they haven't it suddenly is a major issue to be had on the old dakka

simply roll a d6:
1-3: go with it
4-6: go with the crowd on this one.

8 pages of to and froing nipped in the bud

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

That's not how game rules work. The rules define what you can do. So you need a rule saying you CAN do something, not just the lack of a rule saying you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, some players would consider scenic bases to be MFA, if they add significant height to the model.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
On that same note there is no rule which prohibits you from doing so.

That's not how game rules work. The rules define what you can do. So you need a rule saying you CAN do something, not just the lack of a rule saying you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, some players would consider scenic bases to be MFA, if they add significant height to the model.

Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ. pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL
pg 2 and pg 13 of 5th edition rulebook. and to a limited extent 2nd edition page 88...currently looking through 3rd and 4th editions of 40k and i expect to find something similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
3rd has a section in the ultimate secrets of the galaxy revealed. though is loose in it's descriptions. the only rulebook it seems that excludes such is 4th edition rulebook [though it does have a small header on house rules]

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game then how come the actual designers included that as a valid and in game legal option?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

There are no official rules prohibiting MFA. Where does it say I can't have an army of the crouching smaller genestealers, all kneeling or prone guys. MFA is frowned upon by the player base.

I have 2nd Ed Smaller Hive Tyrants and I have never had anyone have an issue with them. Show me a rule where they are illegal.

Orkimedes1000 got me thinking. I just read the rules and you can make your Aegis line out of battlefield debris.

p.174 Aegis Line
Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defense lines)

p. 104 Defense Lines
Defense Lines follow the same rules as barricades and walls.

p. 104 Barricades and walls
Barricades and walls are hastily assembled obstacles or the remains of once proud structures.

Doesn't that say you can ruins and parts?

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ.

Disagree all you want, it won't change that basic principle.

pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL

That page had no bearing on whether our not it is legal to model a different sized ADL.

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game ...

I don't recall ever claiming that house rules were against the spirit of the game. By very definition they're against the regular mechanics.

but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

What, the thread's over because you're not interested in further discussion...?

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Because the ability to create house rules or custom models with your opponent's permission has never been in any doubt. That's not the issue here.

 Mythra wrote:
There are no official rules prohibiting MFA. Where does it say I can't have an army of the crouching smaller genestealers, all kneeling or prone guys. MFA is frowned upon by the player base.

I have 2nd Ed Smaller Hive Tyrants never had anyone have an issue with them. Show me a rule where they are illegal.

Orkimedes1000 got me thinking. I just read the rules and you can make your Aegis line out of battlefield debris.

p.174 Aegis Line
Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defense lines)

p. 104 Defense Lines
Defense Lines follow the same rules as barricades and walls.

p. 104 Barricades and walls
Barricades and walls are hastily assembled obstacles or the remains of once proud structures.

Doesn't that say you can ruins and parts?

Correct. a ADL is exactly the same [with some obvious additions] as a barricade. there is no official size requirement of a barricade. nor is there one for a ADL which is cutom built. the rules do not clearly define how tall or what specifications a ADL is.
the only official thing you could say against someone doing so is YOU the player. nothing else in black and white states: "because it isn't included in this ruleset, then it isn't allowed",

IIRC/AFAIK you can do what you want within the confines of the rulebook. [as long as it fits the spirit of the game, or isn't just plain cheesy/beardy]

the rulebook is the "skeleton frame to work upon" to make games quicker or more enjoyable for both players.

at the end of the day i support a grot or a tyranid ADL. why????

rule of cool.


also it adds to the spirit of the game it doesn't act as a prohibitive strict book you must follow word for word [because that'd be silly at times, not to mention time consuming], as even then you encounter situations where they didn't wrinkle out the rules ie left purposeful gaps so that you, and everyone can make their own stuff up. [looking back 17 years there is enough times i can recall people doing just that, at some point GW actively encouraged it, until they remove "house rules" as being a legal and valid game mechanic then "house rules" are here to stay.

as are the non-descriptive ie specific elements [the times where both players cannot agree, though few and far between still occur. a simple d6 solves everything]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ.

Disagree all you want, it won't change that basic principle.

pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL

That page had no bearing on whether our not it is legal to model a different sized ADL.

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game ...

I don't recall ever claiming that house rules were against the spirit of the game. By very definition they're against the regular mechanics.

but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

What, the thread's over because you're not interested in further discussion...?

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Because the ability to create house rules or custom models with your opponent's permission has never been in any doubt. That's not the issue here.

if you want and have nothing better to do then sure lets argue until we have fighting words. no actually i feel i have said all i needed to say. you may disagree with what i have mentioned however it does not discredit me any. i follow the rulebook, however i also follow common sense

"IIRC/AFAIK you can do what you want within the confines of the rulebook. [as long as it fits the spirit of the game, or isn't just plain cheesy/beardy]

"
Citation required.

The game is written telling you what you CAN do. So, show me a rule saying you CAN alter the official model for an ADL to be something else.

If you cannot do so, then you cannot do so. It is that simple. Or else I win the game on a 2+ on 2D6 - its not in the rulebook but apparently unless it is prohibited I can do it, right?

(Oh, and when someone is modelling for the EXPRESS INTENT to gain an advantage for yourself, and for NO OTHER REASON are you doing this, and you are still defending it? Crazy)

 insaniak wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
Until i see black and white official rules i beg to differ.

Disagree all you want, it won't change that basic principle.

pg 107 rulebook 6th edition. read that and tell me you cannot model a different sized ADL

That page had no bearing on whether our not it is legal to model a different sized ADL.

if house rules are against the game mechanics/not considered in spirit of the game ...

I don't recall ever claiming that house rules were against the spirit of the game. By very definition they're against the regular mechanics.

but if you really feel strongly about it that much, and feel that my conclusion is wrong for whatever reason [even if i am 100% right] mr Insaniak then since you are a mod then simply lock the thread. i am not here to argue the finer points of house rules with you.

What, the thread's over because you're not interested in further discussion...?

the fact remains that House rules: permit the inclusion of custom elements as in "if a new unit" is created, terrain, or vehicle or specialist player made rule. the only restriction is
1. your players permission[Opponent]
2. WYSIWYG

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Because the ability to create house rules or custom models with your opponent's permission has never been in any doubt. That's not the issue here.

by stating something is MFA then you are open to response. if i wandered off topic land it was only to prove in fact that a purpose built customm piece of terrain could be covered by house rules.

you disagree about the fact.

yet you offered no actual conclusive evidence to support why you don't like the idea of a Shortened ADL.

i presented where in the rules it allows you to do so. so yes thankyou but i think i am in the right place. You make Da Call? discuss rules and player made rules? if not then direct me the the right place. because this thread is clearly listed as "Shortened ADL - modelling for advantage?" and unless i am a ignoramus [which by the way i am, but beside the point] i cannot fathom how i am in the wrong section. [considering what i have typed thus far.....rules. ie reference to where it says you CAN. where does it say you CAN"T? page number please.

Orkimedes1000 wrote: if i wandered off topic land it was only to prove in fact that a purpose built customm piece of terrain could be covered by house rules.

you disagree about the fact.

No I don't. You have completely misunderstood the discussion if that's what you have concluded from it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"IIRC/AFAIK you can do what you want within the confines of the rulebook. [as long as it fits the spirit of the game, or isn't just plain cheesy/beardy]

"
Citation required.

The game is written telling you what you CAN do. So, show me a rule saying you CAN alter the official model for an ADL to be something else.

If you cannot do so, then you cannot do so. It is that simple. Or else I win the game on a 2+ on 2D6 - its not in the rulebook but apparently unless it is prohibited I can do it, right?

(Oh, and when someone is modelling for the EXPRESS INTENT to gain an advantage for yourself, and for NO OTHER REASON are you doing this, and you are still defending it? Crazy)

1. where did i mention i was altering a official model or rule? [because it isn't there that's why]
2. assuming of course it is modelled with express intent. [which cannot be gauged as either or]
3. my state of mind is irrelevant to the discussion [duly noted i am insane, like that bothers me]
4. this will keep going on and on and on, to-ing and fro-ing. because from this point it is speculation [because nothing new can be added with reasonable doubt either for or against]
5. i'd allow you to roll a 2+ on 2d6, however i'd add that you lost the game [because that is the kind of toddler logic this thread needs RIGHT????]
6. the game rules are written so two or more players can enjoy the game with little to no hassles. my evidence has been listed. like it or not that is how it is. i didn't write the rules, but i sure follow them unless given a situation not covered clear and concisely in the rulebook. then i resort to the d6 method. [they were written as such to avoid fist fights or broken models or whatever. mainly to have fun and enjoy yourself]
7. lastly find where it tells you can't change or "count as" a terrain piece of your own creation? you cannot/i cannot. were mute. dead heat. a draw. for this debate to continue someone must break the standoff. and as no one can? i guess game over. [see 4. for details as to why]

I would allow you to see "through" the wall, as long as you didn't say "you can't see them the next turn... I have a grot army and I have the same problems




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a solution-Make your grots on large bases-> Not MFA, as you have more area to see.

1) Ther eis an official model for the ADL. You are supporting that people can convert it. Oddly that is where I decided you were supporting converting an official model
2) The rulebook is written saying w2hat you CAN do. I dont have to provide a rule saying you cannot do something, you have to provide a rule saying you CAN do something. Please provide that rule

 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'?

all of my comments or replies pertain to 1. ADL & 2. house rules which allow you to create or modify terrain. ie you create something which isn't a model, then you label it as [insert whatever here] 3. i am still waiting for counter rules which suggest i am wrong? you cannot find the rules anymore than i just presented. it is a you like it then you support it. but that doesn't change the reality you can MAKE custom terrain. the arguement or subsequent creation of one, doesn't offer the OP a valid response. a simple why not and the official reason not some gakbaked excuse because you do not see the potential. [even when the book tells you can]

the reason the OP suggested this was to see if it were acceptable [probably in a friendly game] so where is the issue that some think it is?......if it is a friendly game then by all means you can, in a official game ie tounament then you MUST follow the rulebooks description. unless the TO permits it.

Page 107 6th edition rulebook [DV rulebook, i also own the BRB special ltd edt.. but prefer not get it dirty] UNIQUE TERRAIN "the terrain presented in this section covers but a fraction of the possibilities open to you" does that mean GW is enforcing anti creative self constructed terrain? because it sounds opposite to me.

bold text: terrain data sheets: "some unique terrain even have their own datasheets" of which they don't currently ie self created terrain ie a modified ADL. for orks. currently there is only orky barricades. since the description states in ADL description: "ADL is similar in build to a Barricade".

Page 95: use your imagination. last part "the only limit is buildings you own or your own imagination"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Ther eis an official model for the ADL. You are supporting that people can convert it. Oddly that is where I decided you were supporting converting an official model
2) The rulebook is written saying w2hat you CAN do. I dont have to provide a rule saying you cannot do something, you have to provide a rule saying you CAN do something. Please provide that rule

is that really an issue? did i say convert? no i didn't keep trying. i said self created. if using parts from another kit it is known as kitbashing, not converting.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:

 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'?

all of my comments or replies pertain to 1. ADL & 2. house rules which allow you to create or modify terrain. ie you create something which isn't a model, then you label it as [insert whatever here] 3. i am still waiting for counter rules which suggest i am wrong? you cannot find the rules anymore than i just presented. it is a you like it then you support it. but that doesn't change the reality you can MAKE custom terrain. the arguement or subsequent creation of one, doesn't offer the OP a valid response. a simple why not and the official reason not some gakbaked excuse because you do not see the potential. [even when the book tells you can]

the reason the OP suggested this was to see if it were acceptable [probably in a friendly game] so where is the issue that some think it is?......if it is a friendly game then by all means you can, in a official game ie tounament then you MUST follow the rulebooks description. unless the TO permits it.

Page 107 6th edition rulebook [DV rulebook, i also own the BRB special ltd edt.. but prefer not get it dirty] UNIQUE TERRAIN "the terrain presented in this section covers but a fraction of the possibilities open to you" does that mean GW is enforcing anti creative self constructed terrain? because it sounds opposite to me.

bold text: terrain data sheets: "some unique terrain even have their own datasheets" of which they don't currently ie self created terrain ie a modified ADL. for orks. currently there is only orky barricades. since the description states in ADL description: "ADL is similar in build to a Barricade".

Page 95: use your imagination. last part "the only limit is buildings you own or your own imagination"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Ther eis an official model for the ADL. You are supporting that people can convert it. Oddly that is where I decided you were supporting converting an official model
2) The rulebook is written saying w2hat you CAN do. I dont have to provide a rule saying you cannot do something, you have to provide a rule saying you CAN do something. Please provide that rule

is that really an issue? did i say convert? no i didn't keep trying. i said self created. if using parts from another kit it is known as kitbashing, not converting.

This thread is starting to get into a straight argument. Dakkamite wants to know about the Big Gunz and ADL, not some people and their opinions on MFA. Can we try to keep the thread on topic?

the difference being that conversions are minor, and scratch or kit bashes are major from the ground on up, wheras a conversion is generally a head or weapon swap. although technically the same or similar they are on the opposite spectrum [one being minor and one being major].....so you see as i have already mentioned [all the page numbers with the rules to back up my notion of self made terrain)

there is nothing to stop you from adding a Quad gun to a Orky Barricade and saying it is a ADL or anything else for that matter if it complies with the WYSIWYG and your oppnent expresses it is ok to do so. it's called theme and background story. [although orks are known to loot anything, the key word is "LOOT" a perfectly unlooted ADL isn't orkyfied, therefore out of theme]