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.

 insaniak wrote:

From wrote:
This thread has brought something to my mind.

If there are some models that work well with the ADL, standing IG heavy weapon teams for instance, is there anything in the rules preventing you from using nothing but that model? Would it be MFA to model ALL of your heavy weapon teams identical to the official GW sculpt that can see over the ADL?

This was the point I made earlier.

Using models in different poses isn't in itself an issue. Where people take exception to it is where you make specific modelling choices solely for the purposes of giving yourself an in-game advantage that you wouldn't have using the regular models.

Nobody cares if you model some of your Gretchen in funky poses because it looks cool. People will care if you model your Gretchen all standing on rocks for the sole purpose of letting them see over things that they otherwise couldn't.

Modeling for advantage implies to me that you're altering a model to be standing on those rocks for strictly advantageous purposes. If you're using an official model nothing altered about it (The regular model). What's the problem?

 Timmy149 wrote:

That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

People simply don't care and just want an enjoyable game that makes sense. I'd like to use the word "most" in front of that sentence, but don't care to start another argument.

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

I don't treat them differently.

"What about this model?!!" "And? It can't see either." "... Oh."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

Some stock HWT's can see over the stock ADL, and some stock HWT's can not.

No stock grots can see over the stock ADL.

Modeling extra vision slits, just so a model that has no way of normally seeing over the top of the ADL can see through it, when it would normally have no Line of Sight at all Is the very definition of MFA.

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

Well the ADL slits are higher than the low sections of the walls.

All of the grots I have/have seen are shorter than the low sides of the walls. They could possibly see over the wall to the 3rd or 4th story of a ruin, or a Flyer that is close enough to them, but all of the grots I have/have seen can not see something on the same level as themselves when the grots are within 1 inch of the ALD.

Not 100% sure because I have not seen every 40K grot model in existence, but for most of the grots this is true. (Grots are tiny but you know that).

They arent, or shouldnt be treated any differently. Certianly any tournament I've been in Guard players dont try to treat it differently

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently?

They're not. Or at least shouldn't be. If a model can't see over it, then they can't see over it. It makes no difference what army they come from.

From wrote:

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

There probably are some. IIRC, these fellows were lather tall:

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

Because of what I have been telling people ALL THE TIME in this thread!
It's not allowed but nobody gives a gak.
Just like with these damn Grots: It's MFA but most people couldn't care less.

And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Kangodo wrote:
And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Probably not true. The reason it's on page 11 is because people like me noted that it is MFA, and have been mocked for saying so.
Since I would also prefer not to play against it, the same thing would likely happen.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

Probably not true. The reason it's on page 11 is because people like me noted that it is MFA, and have been mocked for saying so.
Since I would also prefer not to play against it, the same thing would likely happen.

Yes, I dont quite understand how stating something factual (I am modelling to gain X advantage, and for no other reason) causes so much issue.

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.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Unfortunately my mind keeps resetting to Cties of Death, where a unit in contact with a wall may shoot over the wall regardless of LoS.

Cheers

Andrew

Wow, this is a little bit ridiculous.

OP asks question
People give opinions
OP argues their opinion, seeks others
Others agree with OP, OP dismisses everyone who doesn't agree
People post for the first time just to vilify those who posted their opinion to the question asked.

Wow.

As for my opinion?
Is it Modelling For Advantage? Yes. the entire original post says 'I want to create my OWN defence line so that my grots can shoot over it, because the standard model does not allow so'. That's the exact definition. You are changing a model, so that the rules work in a different way to the standard model.

That being said, should it be allowed in a competitive tournament? No, as it is MFA
Should it be used in games ever? Of course it should! In any friendly game which the opponent agrees, fine!
If you played against me at a gaming club, I'd be fine with it.
If I came against you in a tournament, well, it might be a little different

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

JBrehaut wrote:

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

Personal fun at the expense of my opponent is unreasonable. That is what makes you a poor sport when resorting to gamesmanship.

MFA is gamesmanship. Rule of Cool and MFA are mutually exclusive. I don't need to only play against people willing to let me abuse them in order to 'have the funz' when playing. I respect my opponents by not attempting to exploit gaps in the rules or abusive modeling for unintended advantages.

Apparently 'fun' means 'not complaining when someone cheats or plays loose and fast with the rules'. Gravel genestealers and crouching wraithlords are 'fun'. I feel like you can play a fair game with tight rules and appropriate models and it still be fun and friendly. Attempting to get advantages via abusive modeling doesn't sound friendly to opponents to me.

nkelsch wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

What you need to realise OP is that there's different ways of playing the game.
Taking the 'some people take this game too seriously, it's meant to be fun' stance doesn't fly, because there ARE some competitive tournament only players who DO play this game seriously. You way of enjoying hobby doesn't make theirs redundant, neither should theirs; yours.

Use it in friendly games against opponents who agree, if they don't agree, they're not looking to play the game for the same reason as you, and you should avoid them anyway.

Personal fun at the expense of my opponent is unreasonable. That is what makes you a poor sport when resorting to gamesmanship.

MFA is gamesmanship. Rule of Cool and MFA are mutually exclusive. I don't need to only play against people willing to let me abuse them in order to 'have the funz' when playing. I respect my opponents by not attempting to exploit gaps in the rules or abusive modeling for unintended advantages.

Apparently 'fun' means 'not complaining when someone cheats or plays loose and fast with the rules'. Gravel genestealers and crouching wraithlords are 'fun'. I feel like you can play a fair game with tight rules and appropriate models and it still be fun and friendly. Attempting to get advantages via abusive modeling doesn't sound friendly to opponents to me.

By all means I can agree, I guess the main point I was trying to give is, if an opponent agrees to it, then sure, use it. If they do not, then they are the kind of opponent he clearly doesn't wish to play, and be glad you came to that conclusion before playing a game with someone and not enjoying it because they have a different stance.
Your way of having fun and enjoying the game is correct, as is his. They're just not compatible. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle.

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

Are you 100% sure of this? There is no model of a grot from any edition of warhammer 40k standing tall enough to see over or through an ADL slit? Because I'm pretty sure I have some.

There probably are some. IIRC, these fellows were lather tall:

And like the Space Hulk Genestealers, are not actually Warhammer 40000 models...

 insaniak wrote:

And like the Space Hulk Genestealers, are not actually Warhammer 40000 models...

But are Citadel models, and that's what the rules refer to. Also, there probably are some actual 40K gretchin that can see over the wall (no, I'm not going to check.)

Too much bickering to read 11 pages, here is my suggestion to the OP that maybe has already been made.

Make your gretchin defense line and ask your opponent in friendly games if you can use it for gretchin only. Just explain that the regular one is too tall for gretchin but the one you made is too short for your Ork boys.

This way you are not modelling for advantage but using experimental rules in a casual game.

 AndrewC wrote:

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.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Individual models I'd play like they're modeled (and therefore couldnt see over the wall). Units of models I'd insist were played as if standing.
It's not a double standard. It's a sliding scale based on level of offense.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

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.

Objection on the basis of double standards!

From what you have implied elsewhere in this thread if that self-same unit of kneeling FW were behind the wall, you would be claiming that they can't fire because they can't see over it.

Individual models I'd play like they're modeled (and therefore couldnt see over the wall). Units of models I'd insist were played as if standing.
It's not a double standard. It's a sliding scale based on level of offense.

again, I totally think shortened aegis is modelling for advantage/disadvantage (my grots like being out of LOS with their lobbas, lots of my older minis can see over, but this is 15+ yrs old stuff at least)

but as far as what I actually said about conversions rigel2d

easysauce wrote: (biker warbosses, wasdakka, inquisitor valeria, ect)

and every codex with units in it with wargear options only available via conversions (ie a box of GK's comes with one hammer, but OBS we can convert more GKS to have hammers legally, several weapons dont have models with those weapons, acolytes in power armour dont exist, and so on)

is permission to convert, or use stand ins (some lawyer types will say that biker ork warbosses are "illegal" as is using wasdakka or valeria, after all, you cannot play the rules for those units without conversions/stand ins. these lawyer types would be wrong OFC)

which of those units are illegal in your mind then rigel2d or not always acceptable?

Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Hang on, this is like the argument of Rhino's and their successor vehicles. The way the GW razorback mount fits can go two ways-Is it not modelling for advantage if you glue the hole-area to the front? Even when is says to put it on at the back? Same with the Baneblade sponsons and LR sponsons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also yes, in the grots box there are grots that CAN see over an ADL (I did greenstuff their feet up about 5 mm, but that's beside the point. The one standing up with no arms can see over the low bits (I Think)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Dude, you have no idea... Take a read through some of the other threads...

This thread has rapidly devolved into platitudes being thrown at each other. There is literally no more productive input being introduced and the OP has had enough input already to determine his course of action. If people really want to discuss "MFA" they should start a separate thread.

Beast wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

Dude, you have no idea... Take a read through some of the other threads...

Oh, believe me, I know. But to go on for this many pages on the minutia of the construction of a piece of low cover designed for infantry models to be able to shoot over but still take cover behind?

Or, True Line of Sight meaning that five Space marines can fire over an ADL, but the sixth guy in line, who is modeled on kneeling legs, somehow cannot, because he's permanently kneeling.

Or, about the line of sight issues of firing over said ADL, versus the line of sight issues incurred when firing out of a firing slit in said ADL? (The (sane) answer being "none".)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Wow, people take this game far too seriously. I'm not sure how they are even having fun if this can be so much of an issue.

I could point out that discussion of the minutae of the rules is one of the things that people do for fun...

Or that discussing how the rules are written in now way dictates how someone plays the game...

Or that this isn't actually likely to be a big issue at the table, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Some people seem to want to make it an issue, because for some reason it's ridiculous to point out that modelling for advantage is modelling for advantage, apparently...

if your playing for fun, and your opposite doesn't mind. fill your boots.

Comps - no.

Kangodo wrote:

And we wouldn't have this thread on page 11 if the OP asked: "Would you allow it?" instead of "Is this MFA?"!

I worded it badly. I give zero feths about the definition of MFA and all that crap. Its also not a straightforward "Would you allow it", though that is part of the question.

It is, specifically for all you guys who are dictionary-defining this gak (cut that out), the following:

"is this a permittable degree of altering a model for advantage" in three seperate contexts, based on your personal opinion or experience. For the purposes of this question, note that we are not operating under the following definition of MFA: "any change, no matter how small, instantly invalidates a model for competitive play"

The three contexts are;

-Friendly/casual/campaign games
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments

Now seriously, thats the question, and I'm altering the original post and the thread title to include what I was actually asking. Please answer that question and that question only, and don't spam up this thread with stuff that is now officially "off topic"

For Friendly/casual/campaign games: I would only allow an altered ADL if my opponent afforded me the same leeway with my ADL, so I can get a cover save, and not block Line of sight from my predators guns. but if I have to use the stock model then the same is true of my opponent.

For GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments: Official models only, if conversions are present I would expect to play them as the standard GW model.

For Non GW / more casual Tournaments: Same as for GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments

For friendly play, you would be unlikely to have significant issues.

For tournament play, it's really going to depend on the TO, and the specific tournie crowd. For the sort of events I normally play in, the majority of players wouldn't care.