Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 16:53:50
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
EVIL INC wrote:GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army.
If you made something simply because it looks cool, why are you offended when I ask you to play it as if it was the real model? Is it because you are relying on an advantage that your custom model gives you?
Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or
Reported. If you'll notice I spend most of my time in YMDC. It's more odd for me to not post in a YMDC thread than it is for me to post in one. In fact, I have responded to more people than just you in this very thread.
because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.
That's pretty disingenuous - I don't care about any disadvantages. The fact (not opinion) is that you are trying to get something to work using a custom model that can not happen with a stock model. I don't care that I can fire back at the grots - using your "ork ADL" they get a 4+ cover save. Using actual models they get no cover save because they can't shoot over the wall. Even your "disadvantage" is an advantage.
As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.
I'm not a jackass. And if they did it purely for coolness value and/or for theme, why does it matter if the grots can see over it or not?
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 16:54:38
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
I think that crafting an Ork-made ADL which has portholes or slightly lower viewholes in order for Grots to be able to use it is perfectly fine. I don't think it qualifies as modeling for advantage.
The ADL sold by GW is an Imperial ADL. It's not designed for or by Orks. This has never stopped the Orks or any other army from making variations on GW models. Just look at Looted Wagons. No one suggests that Orks HAVE to use a Leman Russ for a Looted Wagon.
An ADL designed BY Orks should be able to be USED by Orks. It would be just silly for Orks to design an ADL that Grots wouldn't be able to see over. Heck, the Grots are the ones the Orks probably have BUILDING the thing in the first place! Claiming that Orks should get less of an advantage from using the ADL than any other codex is unfair to the Ork player who spent the points for the ADL, just because the only GW model happens to be the Imperial model, and sized to Imperial Infantry. Not many codexes that I can think of have models who can't see over the ADL. Orks do. Yet Orks still pay the 50 points for the model. Their infantry units should be able to use it just as effectively as any other army that pays 50 points for the privilege. How is it fair that a Tau player can pay 50 points for an ADL when 99.9% of its models can see over it, but Orks have an entire line of Troops who can't, yet still pay 50 points? An Orky-designed ADL that Grots can see over isn't modeling for advantage, it's modeling to get the same value out of the barricade that all other codexes enjoy.
The ADL is an infantry barricade. Modeling it such that your infantry can use it for its intended purpose doesn't qualify as modeling for advantage.
Saying that this is the same as modeling it to be 8" high and hiding tanks behind it is simply a straw-man argument.
In my games, I use the "Ork Barricades" GW terrrain models as my ADL. They're perfectly Orky, and no one has ever had an issue with me using them as an ADL. Some barricades are a lot higher than others, and there are sections that Grots can't see over, and other sections they can.
I will say though that if you bring the standard GW model for the Imperial ADL, you need to place it in such a way that your Grots can see over it. You can't break the TLoS rules and imagine that the Grots can see over it. However, if you model your own ADL that your Grots can see over, then more power to you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:11:43
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Thank you. There is no reason we cant just get along.
The standard width of the ADL is obvious for reasons that without it, we would have ADLs that are 6 feel long when deployed otherwise.
personally, I feel that when building or converting something that has a set "general purpose", the the builder/converter build it so that it serves the set general purpose it is designed for for their army. the one produced is an imperial guard one designed for imperial guard and should (I feel) be a guideline. How high does it reach on the model it was designed to hide? I feel that an army that has one custom build and converted to match the army and it's fluff should reach the same height on the guys who are designed to stand behind it. This is not done for any advantage (in the case of the grots, it would actually be a DIS-advantage. Again, Personally, to me it's only a game and no reason to get bent out of shape even it is it's wrong because fun, fluff and the "imagery are more important than the fine print.
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:34:49
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
EVIL INC wrote:The standard width of the ADL is obvious for reasons that without it, we would have ADLs that are 6 feel long when deployed otherwise.
So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling?
personally, I feel that when building or converting something that has a set "general purpose", the the builder/converter build it so that it serves the set general purpose it is designed for for their army. the one produced is an imperial guard one designed for imperial guard and should (I feel) be a guideline. How high does it reach on the model it was designed to hide? I feel that an army that has one custom build and converted to match the army and it's fluff should reach the same height on the guys who are designed to stand behind it. This is not done for any advantage (in the case of the grots, it would actually be a DIS-advantage. Again, Personally, to me it's only a game and no reason to get bent out of shape even it is it's wrong because fun, fluff and the "imagery are more important than the fine print.
As I've pointed out - it's not a disadvantage.
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
Perhaps you missed the point of this sub-forum. Posting here means you want to discuss rules. The rules have been pointed out
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:44:18
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
rigeld2 wrote:
So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling?
Yes. And there actually is a good reason why a customized ADL should have a standard width and not a standard height.
In terms of width, all GW models that come on bases are a uniform length. All codex units share the same bases. The only exceptions to this are the few models out there who don't need to be on bases, such as the Soul Grinder.
This means that no matter which army you play, as long as the ADL is the same width, every army will be able to place the same number of units behind it. All armies are equal.
However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:46:05
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Please try to respect the mods.
GW is famous/infamous for having ambiguous rules or having rules that need interpretations and FAQs. If you go to their website, you will even find a section for it.
As GW has not produced an "  rk", or "chaos", or "elder" and so forth ADL model, any model used by a player using any of those armies is by definition a proxy or conversion or whatever you want to call it. If the elder model can see over it to fire , you could claim "that's MFA".
How is it a disadvantage? Well, I hate to tell you this but getting shot at is usually a disadvantage. If you don't believe me on this, speak to ANYONE in the armed forces.
I am not the only ones pointing these out, There are MANY others throughout the thread making the same case I am. Is there a particular reason your singling out ONLY my posts? Or do you agree with them when it is someone else making the theoretical case but not when I make it?
As I said before...
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 17:48:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:48:37
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
Fluffwise, sure. But do you have a rules basis for having a standard width and not a standard height? Heck, what about armies like GK or DA - where it's trivial and common to have only Terminators. You can't fit the same number of Terminators behind an ADL as you can IG troops, so we need a wider ADL. Tyranids - My Tervigons get no cover from an ADL, so I should be able to model it high enough to cover that. Thanks for the permission. Not all codex units share the same bases, so your basis is flawed meaning anything derived from it is flawed. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am. I'm not being hostile at all.
GW is famous/infamous for having ambiguous rules or having rules that need interpretations and FAQs. If you go to their website, you will even find a section for it.
As GW has not produced an "  rk", or "chaos", or "elder" and so forth ADL model, any model used by a player using any of those armies is by definition a proxy or conversion or whatever you want to call it. If the elder model can see over it to fire , you could claim "that's MFA".
Not if an eldar model could shoot over a normal ADL.
How is it a disadvantage? Well, I hate to tell you this but getting shot at is usually a disadvantage. If you don't believe me on this, speak to ANYONE in the armed forces.
With standard ADL - cannot see without being shot at with no cover.
With modified ADL - can see, shoot, etc. and have a 4+ cover.
Hmmm.... seems like an advantage to me.
I am not the only ones pointing these out, There are MANY others throughout the thread making the same case I am. Is there a particular reason your singling out ONLY my posts? Or do you agree with them when it is someone else making the theoretical case but not when I make it?
No, I've responded to all the ones I noticed that have made off the wall statements like "standard width is fine but there's no reason to have a standard height" (paraphrased)
As I said before...
Regardless, to the OP, as you can see, going to an online forum, you will get the opinions of the people who go to that forum and as you can see, opinions are like as... (well, you know the rest, I think it ends with and everybody has one. lol).
Your BEST bet would be to have a sit-down with the other members of your actual gaming club and get THIER feelings on the matter. The people whose opinions will actually make a difference on your games. if you do the local tourney thing, maybe also discuss it with the TO.
Please abide by the tenets of this sub forum.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 17:52:02
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:57:15
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
rigeld2 wrote:Murrdox wrote:However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots.
Fluffwise, sure.
But do you have a rules basis for having a standard width and not a standard height?
Heck, what about armies like GK or DA - where it's trivial and common to have only Terminators. You can't fit the same number of Terminators behind an ADL as you can IG troops, so we need a wider ADL.
Tyranids - My Tervigons get no cover from an ADL, so I should be able to model it high enough to cover that. Thanks for the permission.
Not all codex units share the same bases, so your basis is flawed meaning anything derived from it is flawed.
First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds. You know that there are no hard and fast rules for this, so suggesting that a conversion is against the rules when there are no specific rules governing conversions is simply illogical. You could basically use this same argument to invalidate ANY conversion if your argument was, in fact, valid.
And all codex units DO share the same bases. A Tyranid army will be able to fit X number of 1" bases behind an ADL. A Grey Knights army will be able to fit the same number of 1" bases behind the ADL. It's equal. You are attempting to change the point of the argument, which again isn't valid. Nobody has argued that you should be able to customize the length of the ADL depending on what infantry models that you bring, which is what you're using as a counterpoint. So again, that's a straw-man argument.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 17:58:19
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height. Unless you can point out the page number where it gives those exact measurements......
Otherwise, it is as the bastions and so forth and is "as modeled".
As grots building someone that they can shoot over if perfectly fluffy and a good modeling project, no one can say it is MFA as it is actually evened out by the DISadvantages and purely done in keeping with the fluff of the army. Until GW releases an ork ADL, that is just how it is. However, like I said, it is best to discuss it within your own gaming group first.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:05:33
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds. You know that there are no hard and fast rules for this, so suggesting that a conversion is against the rules when there are no specific rules governing conversions is simply illogical. You could basically use this same argument to invalidate ANY conversion if your argument was, in fact, valid.
The assertion was that modifying an ADL (or building your own) is fine and doesn't have to be held to any standard because there are no rules for an ork ADL, only for an Imperial one. So really it comes down to modeling for advantage. By definition, you are creating a model different from the standard one to get something that wouldn't otherwise work. That's an advantage. And all codex units DO share the same bases. A Tyranid army will be able to fit X number of 1" bases behind an ADL. A Grey Knights army will be able to fit the same number of 1" bases behind the ADL. It's equal. You are attempting to change the point of the argument, which again isn't valid. Nobody has argued that you should be able to customize the length of the ADL depending on what infantry models that you bring, which is what you're using as a counterpoint. So again, that's a straw-man argument.
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases? But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking. Automatically Appended Next Post: EVIL INC wrote:Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height. Unless you can point out the page number where it gives those exact measurements......
Otherwise, it is as the bastions and so forth and is "as modeled".
As grots building someone that they can shoot over if perfectly fluffy and a good modeling project, no one can say it is MFA as it is actually evened out by the DISadvantages and purely done in keeping with the fluff of the army. Until GW releases an ork ADL, that is just how it is. However, like I said, it is best to discuss it within your own gaming group first.
The bolded is demonstrably false... since I (and others) have said that in this thread.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 18:06:27
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:13:16
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
EVIL INC wrote:Going strictly by the letter of the rules, there is the "set" width" or "set". height.
But that's not strictly true, is it? I can take a Leman Russ tank and stick an extra turret on top of it to change the height. I can customize the weapons on my Deff Dread to be different lengths and in different poses. I can put a Terminator on a decorative base that makes him stand .25" taller than other Terminators.
All these conversions are perfectly legal, they potentially affect the measurements taking place during the game, and there are no exact measurements for what any model "should" be. The only rule guidelines really is that a model should fit on the base that it's made for. Really the only conversions that are "illegal" are models that go against the "spirit" of the model. Putting a model on a much larger or smaller base than it is meant to go on, for example. Or making gun barrels extremely long to get a distinct range advantage.
The ADL is designed to be an infantry barricade. Customizing it to suit the short infantry models in your army doesn't violate the spirit of the conversion. It's still an infantry barricade, and you still can fit the same number of models behind it as any other army. Only now, your army can use it for its intended purpose... which is for infantry to stand behind it and shoot. If that's not keeping in with the spirit of a model conversion, I'm not sure what is.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:15:47
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:The ADL is designed to be an infantry barricade. Customizing it to suit the short infantry models in your army doesn't violate the spirit of the conversion. It's still an infantry barricade, and you still can fit the same number of models behind it as any other army. Only now, your army can use it for its intended purpose... which is for infantry to stand behind it and shoot. If that's not keeping in with the spirit of a model conversion, I'm not sure what is.
If Grots were the only Ork infantry I'd agree.
They're not. They aren't even the primary Ork infantry.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:19:14
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
rigeld2 wrote:
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 18:19:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:21:54
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
It really it not a straw man argument, making an ADL really tall just to block Line of Sight, is just as much MFA as making it shorter to let something shoot over it that could not previously shoot over it.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:24:29
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:33:11
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
rigeld2 wrote:Murrdox wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
If GW wanted all 'infantry' regardless of size to use the ADL and gain a cover save while being able to shoot they could have said: "Infantry models in BtB with the ADL may fire unobstructed across the ADL."
Making up 'spirit' of the rules to determine fluff and intent is not possible... And there is a problem when two people have the same unit, same models and paid the same points but one works drastically different and gains an advantage simply because they modeled it differently. Discussing other examples of custom height of models and ADLs to gain advantage is not a strawman because it is happening.
If this means Tourneys and clubs need to clarify and enforce 'No grots/haflings can fire over an ADL regardless how it is modeled to prevent abusive modeling' as part of their no MFA statement they all have, so be it. Same with Rifleman Dreds on 1" tall cinematic bases shooting over rhinos. MFA is MFA no matter how many Ouija boards you get out and divine the true 'spirit' of the game to justify abuse.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:33:50
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
rigeld2 wrote:Murrdox wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Why are you defining the standard as 1" bases? Why can the standard not be 40mm bases?
But you'd be okay with a really tall ADL to give cover to Tervigons? Just checking.
You can pick any base size that you want. I can fit as many Wraithknights behind an ADL as you can fit Tervigons behind it. I can fit as many Deff Dreads behind it as you can fit War Walkers.
And again, as I previously said, nobody is arguing for making 8" tall ADL. It's a straw man argument, but you keep bringing it up.
Except you are arguing for an ADL with a modified height. How is that different from me asking for an ADL with a modified height? After all, why would the Hive Mind grow a defense line that doesn't defend her Synapse Creatures?
Ugh read my post at the top of the page again!
The ADL is an infantry barricade. It costs 50 points. The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.
Most armies have roughly Imperial-sized infantry, so are thus able to use it for its intended purpose with no issue.
Orks have a substantial amount of infantry (and I know a lot of Ork players that would disagree with you that Grots are not a huge part of the Ork army) that do not conform to the Imperial infantry standard size, yet they are still infantry.
Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage. It is a conversion that keeps with the spirit of the base model, accounting for the fact that the Imperial ADL is not designed for Orks.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:40:24
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Murrdox wrote:The ADL is an infantry barricade. It costs 50 points. The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.
I do not see the issue here. It is the Official GW model if they wanted to make it taller or shorter they would have.
Most armies have roughly Imperial-sized infantry, so are thus able to use it for its intended purpose with no issue.
Orks can see over it just fine.
Orks have a substantial amount of infantry (and I know a lot of Ork players that would disagree with you that Grots are not a huge part of the Ork army) that do not conform to the Imperial infantry standard size, yet they are still infantry.
This point does not matter.
Also I have a lot of boys in my Ork army, not one single grot though.
Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
Same goes for Tyranids, and this is irrelevant.
An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage. It is a conversion that keeps with the spirit of the base model, accounting for the fact that the Imperial ADL is not designed for Orks.
Changing the dimensions of a GW model for the sole purpose of being able to do something you would not be able to do with the official model is the definition of MFA...
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:44:40
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Lots of models are explicitly smaller than infantry for very real reasons.
Swarms are small so they can hide behind things Infantry can't to get to assault intact.
Halflings are small to be able to hide easier.
GW makes models which are short, and those short models have adjusted costs to make them play differently. There is no expectation all infantry should be the same size and that grots and haflings should be as tall as human/ork sized infantry.
There is also no expectation that a non-imperial ADL would have different dimensions, in fact a majority of the 3rd party ones and people converting are explicitly making them as close to the exact dimensions of the Imperial one. Why? because they want a cool model and not to have a perceived advantage or to screw other players.
That is why their custom models are not MFA but someone who makes a wall shorter for grots is.
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:49:12
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
A standard ADL blocks LoS from all 25mm based models in the Tyranid army. 40mm models can see over it but I'm unsure on cover (don't have an ADL to look at). Tervigons - a troop unit and essentially infantry - don't benefit whatsoever.
Asking Tyranids to pay 50 points for something they cannot fully benefit from is actually a penalty as well.
One model type in your army isn't a reason to change the height of a stock model just to benefit. It's literally the definition of modeling for advantage.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:53:40
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
nkelsch wrote:
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
By your loose definition of modeling for advantage, all these models are illegal?
I maintain that the Imperial ADL is designed to fit Imperial infantry models. An Ork ADL would be designed to fit Ork infantry models, including Grots. Thus I don't think it's modeling for advantage to convert one to be so.
I suppose you're free to disagree, but I think your interpretation of conversion rules would make most conversions illegal. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:Murrdox wrote:Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.
A standard ADL blocks LoS from all 25mm based models in the Tyranid army. 40mm models can see over it but I'm unsure on cover (don't have an ADL to look at). Tervigons - a troop unit and essentially infantry - don't benefit whatsoever.
Asking Tyranids to pay 50 points for something they cannot fully benefit from is actually a penalty as well.
One model type in your army isn't a reason to change the height of a stock model just to benefit. It's literally the definition of modeling for advantage.
I would similarly argue that if a Tyranid player wanted to model an ADL that his Gaunts could fire over, that would be just fine.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 18:54:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 18:58:17
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Murrdox wrote:nkelsch wrote:
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
If you repeatedly abused the fact that there is a height advantage, I'd call foul. Otherwise they're fine - as long as they looked good.
Since the main reason given throughout this entire thread is to gain a (significant) advantage it's not okay.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:01:33
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
What it really boils down to is what the ruling on it is from the OP's gaming club and the ruling of his local TO.. We can sit here and pointificate till the cows come home and accomplish nothing (especially since the disadvantages gained by converting to actually make the ADL follow the fluff far outweigh and supposed advantages).
Both sides have valid arguments and going back and forth telling the other that everything the say is invalid is just a thinly veiled excuse prolong "hostilities" that should not be there in the first place.,
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:03:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:02:47
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Murrdox wrote:
I suppose you're free to disagree, but I think your interpretation of conversion rules would make most conversions illegal.
Most conversions *ARE* illegal and almost all require opponents consent. And if there is a question where an conversion is harming the rules of the game, then the solution is to use a stock model or measurement for comparison. The entire game works on opponents consent and if you are basically cheating, the game ends.
Most people who convert make an effort to not take an advantage or minimize the impact by making them the same size of the stock model. Those who don't and scream "gamers rights" are the first to have people decline games and models disqualified at tourneys.
Looted wagons, while you have the option of variety, doesn't allow you to build a looted wagon any size you want. You cannot build a looted wagon the size of a monolith and block LOS to 3 BWs simply because you want to. To be a good 'counts as' the vehicles stats, armor and size is based upon that of a Rhino/Chimera/Russ. If you use any of those, you will probably be fine. If you take a Russ, make it twice as wide, add a 12" tower with a turret to it, don't expect to get leeway.
For Stock BWs, just like Land raiders, you have weapon point options. Turret on turret is a valid placement the same way front or back side doors on a LR.
If your looted wagon looks like it was done to abuse rules, people will call you on it and refuse to play you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, both sides do not have valid arguments. "I can cheat because the rules don't say I can't." is not an argument.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:05:01
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:08:57
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
So you are saying that any model that is converted for any reason whatsoever is cheating along with using any non-standard non-citadel model or anything used. Even when it is done purely for creativity and offers more disadvantages than any supposed advantages. Your stance is duly noted.
Again, our "consensus" not that there ever will be one because some like to argue just for the sake of arguing does not mean a jot to his private gaming group (unless you plan to personally go there and force your personal views on them. So it is THIER views that make a difference and not ours. Likely, the op has already figured that out for himself and we are all talking just to hear ourselves talk.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:10:03
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
TheLionOfTheForest wrote: Kommissar Kel wrote: EVIL INC wrote:you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.
His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.
The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.
We had to cross this bridge at the LGS concerning Guard HWT which are all kneeling. We allowed the HWT to shoot over and in turn be shot at. It may not be "by the rules" but we decided that not allowing units to shoot over the Aegis line was not in the spirit of the game. Someone acutally had one of the old prone sniper models.... its absurd that he cant stand up to shoot over it. its not like hes crawling all over the table during the game, the prone model just looks cool for a sniper and it seemed unreasonable that he should not be allowed to take up a sniper position behind an aegis and shoot his sniper rifle. I also have original metal ratlings... they cant see over the wall either. makes me think of the scene in The Two Tower when legolas says to Gimli ; "Do you want me to describe it to you, or shall i find you a box?" welll maybe his grots brought boxes with them to stand on.
since there is only one Aegis kit available it really strains its in game uses. If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it? We dont apply this rule to ruins or any other part of the terrain, but a purchased defense line should be appropriate for the army / units that are going to be using it. I know a lot of people stack several layers of cork under their models for a dynamic base. If he did that to all his grots, giving them TLOS, would that be MFA ? remember the sword cuts both ways, if he can see you, you can see him.
The HWT can see over the low sections, through the V in the connection between sections, and through the slots of the Tall Sections on their own.
The kneeling models are Head and Shoulders above the low section.
You are correct that Ratlings cannot see over the Wall. The solution to this is not to put them behind the wall.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:17:24
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
rigeld2 wrote:Murrdox wrote:nkelsch wrote:
If you modify the size of a model to gain an advantage, how is it not MFA?
I have two Looted Wagons. One of them has a turret 2" taller than the other one. I have a Battlewagon on which I've mounted a secondary turret above the main turret, and another Battlewagon where the secondary weapon is instead mounted on a lower turret. Thus one Battlewagon has a 1" height advantage on one of its weapons.
If you repeatedly abused the fact that there is a height advantage, I'd call foul. Otherwise they're fine - as long as they looked good.
Since the main reason given throughout this entire thread is to gain a (significant) advantage it's not okay.
By your definition a customized model is a significant advantage.
By my definition a customized model is actually getting the full benefit from the 50 points the Ork player has paid for the ADL, because just like the Looted Wagon, there IS no ADL model for the Ork army.
Just like the Looted Wagon, an Ork player can plop down a Leman Russ tank with an Ork paintjob. Or an Ork player can customize the hell out of it, and it can be one inch shorter or taller, or it can have a turret or not have a turret. It can have sponsons or it can have hull mounted weapons.
If an Ork can do all that to a Leman Russ and still be able to play with it, you want to say that lowering a couple sections of an ADL by 1/4" or putting portholes in it at Grot level crosses the line? Especially when it's fully within the fluff of what an Ork army would actually put on the field?
I think I've made my point, you're not going to agree with it, but there you go.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:22:50
Subject: Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
No, there is an ADL for orks - the one pictured in the rule book. There just isn't one that is specifically for your army.
By making an ADL expressly to allow you to do something you couldn't do before, you are modelling for advantage. No amount of semantics will avoid that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:29:56
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
TheLionOfTheForest wrote:If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it?
He doesn't have an orkish defense line, though. At this point in time, the game only includes Imperial fortifications, which are available to all armies. So the Ork commander finds himself with an Imperial defense line, and grots that can't see over it. Which leaves two choices - put the grots behind a wall they can't see over, or put the grots somewhere else and use the wall for some other purpose.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/04 19:30:40
Subject: Re:Grots and the ADL
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Murrdox wrote:rigeld2 wrote: So a standard width is okay, but standard height is right out? And still no actual basis for that aside from a feeling? Yes. And there actually is a good reason why a customized ADL should have a standard width and not a standard height. In terms of width, all GW models that come on bases are a uniform length. All codex units share the same bases. The only exceptions to this are the few models out there who don't need to be on bases, such as the Soul Grinder. This means that no matter which army you play, as long as the ADL is the same width, every army will be able to place the same number of units behind it. All armies are equal. However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. Thus it would be reasonable to adjust the height of your customized ADL to accommodate the infantry models in your army, such as Grots. No, there is no good reason why you should be able to alter 1 dimension without being able to alter the other 2 dimensions. In fact you should make your scratch-built ADL compliant in all 3 dimensions and should all be the same dimensions. If you want to start claiming that you can alter 1 dimension then you should be able to alter all 3, and if you able alter all 3; then the final scratch-built should be the same Volume. So if I can alter 1 dimension I should have to alter the other 2; leading to me allowed to feild an ADL that is made from 1 mil plasticard 1/2" tall and with 2' long long sections; right? And the Orks can still fully benefit from their 50point Citadel ADL; just the grots cannot fire over it, 90% of the rest of the codex benefit just fine. (even the grots benefit by being out of LOS, able to sit on an objective without fear of reprisal).
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:34:30
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
|