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.

-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

Theres a guy at my club who uses old 40k Trukks - they're like, a third the size of real ones. I could understand if people take issue with a vehicle like that

easysauce wrote:

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?

It depends on how they're modeled. Which is what I've said. So since you want an absolute answer to misquote, potentially all of them.

I'm separating the second option as I think the answers are different.

For casual play: totally acceptable

For GW: I think the intent is for you to so this

For anal tournament: depends on the tournament and prior approval but very unlikely. Note that these tournaments commonly publish their own FAQs and ruling prior to play.

For casual tournament: get prior approval as this depends on the TO. If I was the TO I'd allow it as the idea of grots hiding behind something while shooting is totally inline with the stories.

 Mythra wrote:

Both these walls were allowed in tournaments and Nids can't technically even use a Aegis Line so it looks like the answer will vary to whichever side your TO leans. I bet rule of cool goes a Loonnnggggggg way.

http://www.fritz40k.com/2012/10/xeno-aegis-defense-line-options.html

Nothing would stop you from having a genestealer army of all those short stealers from space hulk. I see no rule about MFA in the rule book. White Dwarf features plenty of custom bastions and defense lines and White Dwarf is official 40k.

EDIT add : Read the bottom post of that above cited defense line pic blog --- interesting.


Anyway with my Throne of skulls tournament next week I broached the subject on the Warhammer World Facebook page and got this definitive response [you heard it here first]

"Hey Dave- I have spoken to Simon and Jervis from Games Development (note - this isn't something we normally do, but given the pressing time limit, I went and did it!) and the answer is this - "Only emplaced weapons (such as those found on a Bastion or Fortress of Redemption) have the option to be fired either manually or automatically. Weapons attached to an Aegis defence line are gun emplacements, which cannot be fired automatically. The Tyranids FAQ document states that Tyranids cannot fire weapons manually, therefore as much as they are free to use Aegis defence lines, they will not benefit from any attached gun emplacements. We are, however, aware that this is a problem and will be reviewing the situation when we begin writing the next batch of FAQs in a few weeks."

So there may be an upcoming reprieve for the quad gun."

I thought so, then they brought out the latest FAQ and it wasn't reprieved. However, an upcoming Warhammer World tournament allows Xenos forces to take Genestealer cultists and they get to fire autoguns and heavy stubbers, so if they bring these guys back in the recently rumored 'allies supplement' I think that's where we'll get our Quad gun shooters, although I can't imagine them sticking their hands in the back of my Quad gun

 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.

40K You Make Da Call
Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

The above is a direct quote from the link to this sub-forum that you clicked. You were warned before even coming here and yet you complain?

Get out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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

So would you concede that if Dakkamite here presented you with Official models only that were Gretchen standing tall enough to see through the slits in the normal ADL that his conversion would no longer matter? If you played both as the "standard GW model." his models could still see making the visual changes irrelevant?

Except standard Gretchen are not tall enough to see over the low part of the wall to things on the same level.

As you can see by these ADL still on the sprue, the low wall sections are shorter than the vision slits. Pic spoilerd it is quite large.

40K You Make Da Call
Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

The above is a direct quote from the link to this sub-forum that you clicked. You were warned before even coming here and yet you complain?

Get out.

That last part's pretty rude, so sorry, no. Don't come at me unless you are going to include everyone else that's said something similar in this thread. It wasn;t even complaining, but a shaking of the head and going "Really guys?".

And there's a difference between a heated discussion that remains constructive, and one that's just repeating the same things over and over.

@From: this discussion effectively changed the moment dakkamite updated the post earlier today. Also, I agree with AegisGrimm, that your comment was extremely rude. It certainly added nothing here.

That said, I'm not entirely sure there are grots that can see over a standard ADL. I haven't historically taken DR's side on anything; however, I'm sure he would agree that if a grot existed that was actually tall enough to see over the center part of the barrier and was modeled as provided from GW then it would get to fire due to de facto LOS to the target unit. Regardless, that's not relevant to the discussion (before or after the slight topic change by the OP).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except standard Gretchen are not tall enough to see over the low part of the wall to things on the same level.

What is 'standard gretchin'? GW has made gretchin for decades, I'm sure some of them can see over it; those Space Crusade gretchin probably would. (How tall is the lower portion of the wall anyway?)

The lower section of the wall is about 1" or so.

From wrote:

I too would like to know what a standard gretchin is.I would like to know If the ancient gretchin I'm in possession of (who's foreheads, eyes, and pointy little hats stand neatly above my ADL) are not standard.

Yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Many older gretchin were larger than the current ones, they got smaller after Gorkamorka (and they started to call them grots.)

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

I too would like to know what a standard gretchin is.I would like to know If the ancient gretchin I'm in possession of (who's foreheads, eyes, and pointy little hats stand neatly above my ADL) are not standard.

Yeah, I suspected that might be the case. Many older gretchin were larger than the current ones, they got smaller after Gorkamorka (and they started to call them grots.)

ADL is 1" tall at the short section.

No Gorka Grots or 5th edition plastic grots are 1" tall at eye level when mounted on a base. No 40k grot model made after 1998 is tall enough to see over an ADL.

I have the 2nd edition plastic grots. *MINE* are not tall enough to see over the ADL. They are close, but no cigar unless you mounted them on top of a layer of thick gravel. they are about 2/16ths of an inch too short. They are almost the exact same size as one of the plastic grots on the new kit which has the same pose and everything. They are not larger except the gun and pointy spike.

Here is a good ebay auction which shows:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Painted-WH-40K-Plastic-Space-Ork-and-2-Gretchen-Minis-/290358109601?pt=Games_US&hash=item439ab125a1

The spike may be seen, but the entire grot, including base is under 1" and can't see over an ADL.

I don't see any evidence that GW intended all 28mm infantry models the inherent right to see over an ADL unobstructed for 1-way cover. I think it is ok for leeway for models who have counterparts who COULD see over like a few scattered Kneeling tau or Iguard in a unit with standing models who clearly can see... the old previous edition 'any model can be any model' concept. That is fine for casual games.

There is simply no justification for saying 20 years of models which can never see over in any situation should be allowed to see over. If everyone's grots can't see over, then I don't see why I would deserve an advantage no one else can get. Consistency is fairness, and I don't want to abuse opponents.

From wrote:
What is 'standard gretchin'?

It is a Grot or gretchin kit produced by GW and not modified in any way. (Aka no scenic bases, no converted Ork torso's made into grots etc...)

UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

 Nem wrote:


-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

So older players like myself who've been collecting since late 3rd early 4th (Or way, way, way earlier in some of your cases!) should just toss our models out the window because GW released new ones? Really? I mean, that's pretty much the ONLY next logical step to that thought process. If someone went through the time and effort to acquire all older models then so be it. My entire SM and Tau forces are from the pewter era. Should I toss out my Broadside kits and spend 360 dollars on replacement broadsides because they made them bulkier? I would walk away at that point and be 100% in the right for doing so. Not every player who's ever been playing sits on the internet and follows what's legal in terms of basing. When the base size goes up if you've got a problem with their base size then add dimensions to it when you charge - holy crap - how hard was that? It's not like it's printed in the rulebook what models utilize what base sizes, and until it does so you should really approach this situation with an open mind.

MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

No need for rudeness, watch your tone and language please. Thank you.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Thats good! When in doubt, contact the TO.

Anbutou wrote:

 Nem wrote:


-Friendly/casual/campaign games - Happy to play, but would much prefer a scratch build.
-GW / anal rule enforcement Tournaments - No
-Non GW / more casual Tournaments - Depends how casual the tornament is, really. Some will not allow, some may, but still a much better chance with a scratch build.


One of the things that caught my eye in this thread was when the discussion turned to older 40k models and how this could be 'MFA', to the point where people mentioned they would not like to play against it.
This struck me as strange since I've read a few threads on bases over the last few months, and I don't think anyone has been against using 'The base the model was supplied with' - at least not to the extent as opposition was formed in this thread.

Just seemed wierd to me as personally I would prefer they are on the current base size over being a current model. Sure, if someones whole army was comprised of older models with the obvios intent to gain advantage on the board I would get my frown on, But I guess this is all preference

So older players like myself who've been collecting since late 3rd early 4th (Or way, way, way earlier in some of your cases!) should just toss our models out the window because GW released new ones? Really? I mean, that's pretty much the ONLY next logical step to that thought process. If someone went through the time and effort to acquire all older models then so be it. My entire SM and Tau forces are from the pewter era. Should I toss out my Broadside kits and spend 360 dollars on replacement broadsides because they made them bulkier? I would walk away at that point and be 100% in the right for doing so. Not every player who's ever been playing sits on the internet and follows what's legal in terms of basing. When the base size goes up if you've got a problem with their base size then add dimensions to it when you charge - holy crap - how hard was that? It's not like it's printed in the rulebook what models utilize what base sizes, and until it does so you should really approach this situation with an open mind.

MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

I wasn't implying I don't want to play against older models, I have plenty of older models myself. I was saying I find it wierd how in this thread there was opposition to older models based on advantages they might bring, though in the *Many* 'Base size' YMDC's Older bases have never faced opposition, and I am of the opinion often the base sizes will cause more varience than models. That is just my opinion though.

*****

Grats OP on your win though. Maybe post your creation in the P&M section once complete? Would be a nice followup

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Good to hear and good luck in your games.

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

Did you explicitly ask in regards to changing the dimensions to allow models to change LOS or did you bury the lead by asking if custom ADLs are allowed and not clarifying the potential dispute or your motivation?

Lots of people ask TOs loaded questions to get a specific result only to be overturned the day of the event when the motive is revealed.

The question to the TO should not have been "can I use a custom model to represent an orky ADL?" but "Can I modify the dimensions of the ADL to whatever I want to change how models interact with it in regards for LOS purposes?"

I suspect most TOs would say "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second question.

nkelsch wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dakkamite wrote:UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

Huzzah! Enjoyment of the game wins out again!

Did you explicitly ask in regards to changing the dimensions to allow models to change LOS or did you bury the lead by asking if custom ADLs are allowed and not clarifying the potential dispute or your motivation?

Lots of people ask TOs loaded questions to get a specific result only to be overturned the day of the event when the motive is revealed.

The question to the TO should not have been "can I use a custom model to represent an orky ADL?" but "Can I modify the dimensions of the ADL to whatever I want to change how models interact with it in regards for LOS purposes?"

I suspect most TOs would say "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second question.

He said the TO wanted more than him just drilling holes, so it sounds like he explained the whole situation.
You shouldn't ask it either of those ways, the second phrasing is angling for a certain answer just as much as the first way. Explain the situation in full.

 Dakkamite wrote:
UPDATE:

Tournament Organizer ruled it legal as long as I construct a suitably Orky barricade and don't just drill holes in a GW model.

glad to hear it,

more fun to have an orky one, and IMO its actually a disadvantage to not be able to put grots out of LOS behind the aegis, but thats because I use the barrage lobbas.

I really like custom terrain. Can you post pics of your ADL in relation to grots?

nkelsch wrote:

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

You seem to be arguing the first point I made against the second. They're two completely different points. I'm not saying grots got shorter, or that the ADL existed pre 6th. I was talking about people trying to imply that utilizing older models is MFA, and then I was talking about the actual subject of the thread. Y'know... the reason we're here? >.>

Anbutou wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Anbutou wrote:


MFA exists, and you guys are absolutely right, however this is a complete gray area case for MFA. It's not like he's trying to break the game here. If he was trying to rig up a solution that still kept the Grots from being fired upon while shooting, that's definitely MFA. That's not what's happening here. Setting it up so that his Grots can shoot and be shot is a fair trade 100% of the time in my book.

Grots didn't become shorter/taller from the OOP models the way Tyranid TMC, Eldar Avatar, GorkaTrukks did. This is not the same discussion as someone being told OOP models are invalid and have to be treated as the new model (which does happen in many tourneys)

We never had an old ADL, and No Grots ever produced can see over the current ADL without modification. You can't compare the outrage of buying 8 new trukks or a new Eldar avatar to that of the grot ADL issue. Apples to oranges.

For the most part, except for a few notable exceptions, almost no OOP model changes changed the size significant enough to gain a distinct advantage or impact the game. The old Rhino is slightly smaller, but not enough to make a huge distance. But if there ever was confusion, your old models are still legal, many events may want them played as current stock model sizes for consistency's sake across a tourney.

I use the resin ork barricades as my ADL... Grots can see over it. I simply don't play with grots and the ADL to avoid the argument or getting an undeserved advantage. I have 20 years of ork models and whenever there is an issue, I am perfectly willing to treat the model for all rules purposes as the size and footprint of the current stock GW model. I have retired/repurposed many models because they were innapropriate for gameplay and abusive to my opponents. Gorkatrukks are buggies, Custom 3rd edition BWs are Battlefortresses for Apoc games. I have seen gorka trukks and oversized BWs thrown out of every type of tourney from 'ardboyz, small RTTs to larger events. I use the stock Warbuggies (which are tiny) which a judge asked to use for someone using predators as ork buggies for a critical issue on another table.

You seem to be arguing the first point I made against the second. They're two completely different points. I'm not saying grots got shorter, or that the ADL existed pre 6th. I was talking about people trying to imply that utilizing older models is MFA, and then I was talking about the actual subject of the thread. Y'know... the reason we're here? >.>

The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

 Timmy149 wrote:
The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

That really depends on whether or not you find older models cool...

 insaniak wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
The usage of older models is not MFA. sourcing an army of them is not MFA either, although it goes against the rule of cool.

That really depends on whether or not you find older models cool...

By rule of cool I refer to having a legit 40k army. Not one designed to be one that gets around rules and does some MFA stuff.