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.

Would it be modeling for advantage if I were to take my mortar teams, on the proper bases, and attach a peg ot a stick on the underside of the base to add support, or a "third leg" so that they could sit on the upper floors of a ruined building?
Was thinking about it.....
you tell me......

Are you making a change to a model in order to gain an in game advantage you would not get without the modelling change? If the answer is yes then you are modelling for an advantage.

 danpieri wrote:
so that they could sit on the upper floors of a ruined building?

This sounds like you are trying to gain an advantage that the model does not normally have (being able to sit in a different area of a ruin), so I would have to say yes, this is MFA. Can they sit in upper floors without the change you are making? I doubt it or you wouldn't be wanting to make it. So you are modifying the model to gain advantage.

Usually I find that if you have to ask if something is MFA...it likely is.

Would it be... too difficult to use your subject line to inform us as to the subject of your thread?

On-topic, wobbly model syndrome usually covers this situation. How small of a floor area are you trying to shove the base onto? And is placing them there really that much of an advantage?

I do have to point out also this thread is going to be locked for not following the tenets of this board. Please take a look at the first three threads you will find at the top of the front page, as they have been sticked in place for a reason. The second one in particular, in case you are wondering about why. Sorry, feel bad bringing it up, but you know a mod is going to come across and not even give it a second thought before locking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The short answer, while we have a window to give the open post, is No.

This sort of modification is clearly illegal because it is being done to circumvent some of the rules. Page 98, moving through ruins, clearly states the model has to be able to fit physically on the ruins for. If the model is far to large to sit in the place question, which the original poster hints to by suggesting he wants a 'leg' on his base, then it is not a legal position. Any modification to the base is not just molding for advantage but as the base is used in so many rules it would be outright cheating to do anything to change the shape, function or size of the base.

WMS only goes so far as well, it needs to be a legal position to begin with but one that puts the model in threat of damage.

Actually, dan, you can edit the title of your thread to make it more clear. It would probably be helpful if you did so, certainly helpful in avoiding the prophecies of doom for your thread.

As to the question itself, this is an issue that your opponents are going to differ on. Personally, I say no, it's not MFA, that wobbly model syndrome covers this. That being said, obviously some people disagree. In an issue like this, where there's some ambiguity, I would defer to your opponent. By allowing them to make the decision on whether or not you can place the heavy weapon team with the assistance of your peg (I assume the peg is going to be removable?) you ingratiate yourself to your opponent, and make it more likely that they will allow you to play it the way you'd prefer.

This shouldn't be a big deal in most games, though, and is hardly liable to make or break your army. You shouldn't have too many problems here.

I have changed the thread title.

Yeah, unless I am grossly misunderstanding what is being asked, this isn't MFA since it isn't allowing you to do anything that you can't already do either with careful balance or the application of WMS.

I can't agree with that, if the model can't physically fit on the platform then simply stating 'wobbly model syndrome' or modifying the model to do so doesn't make it a legal placement. There are many rules in question that prevent you from placing a model if it can not physically fit, one is in the ruin section itself. If you an not physically place the model in a location, by it's own merits, then it can not stand there. This modification would allow the model to stand with no more then a 1/4, or even less, of the base fitting on the platform in question. How can that be legal in the slightest?

Also keep in mind: The wobbly rule requires both players to agree for it to be allowed.

JinxDragon wrote:
I can't agree with that, if the model can't physically fit on the platform then simply stating 'wobbly model syndrome' or modifying the model to do so doesn't make it a legal placement.

Actually, yeah, that's my bad. The Ruins rules do actually only allow the model to go up a level if it can be physically placed.

Also keep in mind: The wobbly rule requires both players to agree for it to be allowed.

There's some debate on that. The other interpretation is just that it requires players to agree on the model's location, not on whether or not WMS can be used. But either way, I have never had an opponent have an issue with using WMS. So long as the placement you're trying for is not ridiculous, you'll rarely have someone take issue with it.

I wish I could say I don't know how such a debate would happen, but there is all sorts of arguments that form over the use of a single word on this site so... yeah, I shall keep silent on what I think in order to prevent that debate reopening.

It would be dangerous to say this is modelling for advantage. It sounds like he's just adding some material to the hollow part of a GW base so that it can balance better. All third-party resin bases are filled in and completely flat along the bottom, whereas GW bases have a rim but then are hollow in the middle. I would not like to even consider that using a non-GW base is cheating.

Sorry about the title. I thought I had only put "Would it be..." as the title. My bad.
Thanks for the input on my question though. I just wanted to make sure before I tried my idea.

 danpieri wrote:
Sorry about the title. I thought I had only put "Would it be..." as the title.

You did, and that was the problem.

What ever Ghaz

Or you can order the older metal mortar teams because it is two troopers on 20 mm bases and the mortor sits on the table. and since that is official GW model that is legal.

stichfitz wrote:
Or you can order the older metal mortar teams because it is two troopers on 20 mm bases and the mortor sits on the table. and since that is official GW model that is legal.

And you will have no end of trouble if you do that, as the weapons teams, how they are currently, interact very differently with the rules.

stichfitz wrote:
Or you can order the older metal mortar teams because it is two troopers on 20 mm bases and the mortor sits on the table. and since that is official GW model that is legal.

If being 'official GW models' is all it takes for a model to be legal, I guess I need to put some scouts with shuriken catapults back into my Marine army...

The old separately based Guard weapon teams are indeed 'official GW models'. They are not legal heavy weapon teams any more, though, as the rules for heavy weapon teams have changed significantly since those models were released, and they are no longer comprised of two separate models and a gun.