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.
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You can't control terrain. Sometimes you will play on a board with large amounts of terrain that will hide the model, sometimes you won't. Making the model shorter is equivalent to being able to make terrain taller for yourself but not your opponent.
Honestly it is such an edge case that it isn't worth the time fussing about. You can only model for advantage if you know the metrics of the terrain. You say, make the terrain shorter, well what if it is not full-model height? What if it has windows? What if they are forests and fauna that doesn't block LOS anyway?
Dandelion wrote: I really don't understand the gripe of "modeling for advantage". 40k's balance isn't good enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention that LOS is based on terrain more than models and terrain changes from game to game anyway. Having a shorter model is the same as having taller terrain in most ways. There's just too many variables for a change in silhouette to matter much. IDK it just seems to be much ado about nothing. So long as the models don't change mid-game I don't see the problem.
just my 2 cents, i guess
You can't control terrain. Sometimes you will play on a board with large amounts of terrain that will hide the model, sometimes you won't. Making the model shorter is equivalent to being able to make terrain taller for yourself but not your opponent.
Honestly it is such an edge case that it isn't worth the time fussing about. You can only model for advantage if you know the metrics of the terrain. You say, make the terrain shorter, well what if it is not full-model height? What if it has windows? What if they are forests and fauna that doesn't block LOS anyway?
A minor or situation advantage is still an advantage. You have changed your model in a way that gives you an advantage. Think of it like this: if I had a single die in my cube of identical looking dice that I knew always rolled 6's, would using that cube be cheating? When I pick up 20 dice I don't know if the unfair one is in that handful. It is a small advantage.
Furthermore, I think you are undervaluing the advantage. Or possibly you don't play a lot of ITC format games. In the ITC format small tournaments I mostly play (tournaments to maximize my 1 gaming day a month, ITC because it's what gets played here) the majority of terrain is GW stlye ruins, and first level always blocks LOS. A model being small enough to fit at 1st level translates to being able to keep it out of LOS, which translates to being able to keep it alive.
Again, this is modeling for advantage that I am personally ok with, because the GW provided model is stupid as is. Until GW releases a version of the kit that doesn't have fljvhg stands, it is modeling for advantage and you will need to address that with opponents and TO's prior to games.
SHUPPET wrote:the rule is called modelling for advantage, I don't own the 8th brb so I'm unsure if it's in the current edition..
It's not.
SHUPPET wrote:...but either way it's enforced almost universally at all events and most other places within the community too.
Yeah, that's what I suspected.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
Yet again, we appear to have another 40k debate that comes down to whether or not the situation in question is a casual or competitive one. Although, disagreements will persist about the extent of the advantage, it seems clear that everyone will agree that there is at least some advantage to modeling without the stands. It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
SHUPPET wrote:the rule is called modelling for advantage, I don't own the 8th brb so I'm unsure if it's in the current edition..
It's not.
SHUPPET wrote:...but either way it's enforced almost universally at all events and most other places within the community too.
Yeah, that's what I suspected.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
Yet again, we appear to have another 40k debate that comes down to whether or not the situation in question is a casual or competitive one. Although, disagreements will persist about the extent of the advantage, it seems clear that everyone will agree that there is at least some advantage to modeling without the stands. It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
FWIW most competitive players I know in the UK wouldn't care. Can't speak for elsewhere.
People seem to have this idea that competitive players are deadly serious and casual ones not, but that is not at all the case. Also, competitive players typically travel more with their army so modelling suppressors/inceptors/eels without those damned stands is something most can empathise with.
Basically, I think the problem is some people are overthinking a minor issue. Given that it can fly and is hardly an OP unit (on paper), it doesn't matter imo.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
The example was on the deliberately pointed one to show you how drastically changing the LoS profile on a model because you prefer it aesthetically, can alter the gameplay impact of a model, and that laziness or aesthetic preference isn't a valid reason for doing so. If you can see why one is an advantage you can now unmistakeably recognise why the other one is. I'm not saying that they are the same level of disrespect, because I can see why someone would want to remove the stands of these models like in your example, whereas anyone doing my example is clearly being utterly ridiculous. And that's why the rule is enforced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/12 11:40:34
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread... It seems to me that in any casual game, anyone complaining about not using the stands is probably not worth playing with, whereas in a competitive environment, it only seems fair to try to come up with some other modelling solution to approximate the intended height.
So with given two different heights of the flying stems that most light vehicles come with, which one would you say the "fair" and "sportsmanlike" modelling solution to approximating the "intended height?" What about those who use the squatting fire warrior models to claim TLOS underneath a flying devilfish? Are they being "fair"? after all, you can't make a full squad of fire warriors without using those sprues.
The answer is there is no such thing, and people are free to model their miniatures how they see fit, just as much as you are free to decide to not play with someone with such models.
All of the decisions allowing/disallowing is done at the discretion of involved players/TO's, aka house rules. It's one thing to discuss the potential impact of MFA, but words like "fair" and "sportsmanship" don't belong in this discussion.
Flying stands are awful, so I don't consider this modeling for advantage.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
SHUPPET wrote:What if I don't like the Carnifex body? And Maybe I don't know how to sculpt or convert a better one? There's nothing else that physically states I can't cut the head off my Stonecrusher Carnifexes, glue them to the bases, model some dirt around them, and claim that they are depicted still burrowing while I move them up the board completely out of Line of Sight, but sometimes it just takes common sense - don't be TFG.
I agree, but whereas your extreme Carnifex example is clearly something that no sensible person would agree is sportsmanlike, I don't think the line is as clear with inceptors/suppressors as clearly evidensed by the varied responses to this thread.
The example was on the deliberately pointed one to show you how drastically changing the LoS profile on a model because you prefer it aesthetically, can alter the gameplay impact of a model, and that laziness or aesthetic preference isn't a valid reason for doing so. If you can see why one is an advantage you can now unmistakeably recognise why the other one is. I'm not saying that they are the same level of disrespect, because I can see why someone would want to remove the stands of these models like in your example, whereas anyone doing my example is clearly being utterly ridiculous. And that's why the rule is enforced.
I think the problem is that you're boiling the issue down to a binary one of fair/unfair, that which I agree can be done, is not something I believe should be done. I believe the issue is a scalar one and should be considered as such.
Does modelling inceptors/suppressors give them a line-of-sight advantage? Yes.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to invalidate "aesthetic preference" as "a valid reason for doing so," in a narrative setting? No.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to warrant mandating that the flight stands must be used at a competitive level? I don't believe so, yet I can understand why a tournament organizer might disagree: one might consider that in the highest levels of competition, every edge counts, and that's an entirely understandable.
skchsan wrote:So with given two different heights of the flying stems that most light vehicles come with, which one would you say the "fair" and "sportsmanlike" modelling solution to approximating the "intended height?"
As there is a choice in the flying stems, I would argue that one could choose either to approximate a fair height.
skchsan wrote:What about those who use the squatting fire warrior models to claim TLOS underneath a flying devilfish? Are they being "fair"? after all, you can't make a full squad of fire warriors without using those sprues.
My understanding of the rules is that line-of-sight can be drawn from any part of the model, including their toe/hoof, so I don't see a difference between the fire warriors in your example. Is my understanding not correct?
skchsan wrote:All of the decisions allowing/disallowing is done at the discretion of involved players/TO's, aka house rules.
I agree.
skchsan wrote:It's one thing to discuss the potential impact of MFA, but words like "fair" and "sportsmanship" don't belong in this discussion.
Is that advantage "drastic" enough to warrant mandating that the flight stands must be used at a competitive level? I don't believe so, yet I can understand why a tournament organizer might disagree: one might consider that in the highest levels of competition, every edge counts, and that's an entirely understandable.
Cutting it's sight profile in half is the difference between being able to hide behind LoS more often then not. Jump units like this are so much taller for good reason. This is literally the sort of difference that can affect game outcomes and if anyone thinks otherwise, you have either never had a close game or are just don't have a strong grip on the game. LoS is the most important mechanic in the game, and whether or not you give it up affects so much. There's a reason Shock Cannon Hive Guard are garbage even though they hit almost double as hard as Impalers. LoS profile is very relevant, especially drastic changes to it like this. Roughly the same size, people will okay it, we all love conversions. Ridiculously different simply because you don't like the model? Nah.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Whether you are doing intentionally or not, at least recognize that there is an advantage, that just choose to ignore it.
The model that has had its profile altered has the advantage as they are in control of its position and what it can do in its turn. Given the random nature of who goes first this could very well come into play in some situations.
For a game that is based purely on line of sight to parts of models, models should be built as intended by GW. Where you have room to play with is all the extra decorative bits.
Here in this thread we have an example were it looks like the model is awkwardly posed just to avoid the stand. It looks worse than on the stand IMO (falling backwards firing).
As for someone bringing up the example of kneeling tau fire warrior, it it came in the kit its fair game. Buying a bunch of the kneeling warriors and using them in a single squad would be modelling for advantage.
At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
Smirrors wrote: At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
The problem with this is that really competitive players will question the exactness of someone lifting the model to a height, and some may even complain that models should never be moved out of phase, in spite of the fact that wobbly model syndrome allows for it.
Smirrors wrote: At the end of the day it should be easy to determine whether a model can be seen or not but lifting it up for roughly the same height as a stock model. If you have a problem with this, then you are modelling for an advantage.
The problem with this is that really competitive players will question the exactness of someone lifting the model to a height, and some may even complain that models should never be moved out of phase, in spite of the fact that wobbly model syndrome allows for it.
I would hope in a serious tournament, the TO will have a policy on this that will make it straightforward.
This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/16 18:48:43
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
The flight stand on a crisis suit is far less of a difference in height than these and you know it.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
I'm curious...
What happens when the box was an error and supplied with the wrong bases?
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
those flight stands add less height to the model than putting them on a single layer of fork would lol. That falls under "roughly the same size" and is why it's the only example you can find of this "precedent", and is definitely not a parallel or precedent to this issue here. Crisis suits are the exception, not the rule, and if taking suppressors off their stands only accounted for the loss of height of the vertical length feet then that wouldn't be an issue either, as we've already said if it was modelled to have a roughly similar height that would be fine. There is a far more significant LoS change here that crosses into "modelling for advantage" territory.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/16 19:15:30
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
aka_mythos wrote: Unless you retain their height while on the flying stem, yes, its advantageous modeling... but as far as I know I've never seen a rule prohibiting advantageous modeling.
You are also suppose to model on the size of the bases provided... and I think its a legitimate argument that the stem is intended as a piece of the provided base.
Precedence from Tau Crisis Suits both in tournaments and in GW's own how to build your models guide in the box is flight stands are and always have been options.
Also those models look way less derpy than the base GW flight stand poses.
They actually look like they are in a warzone not casually loling about.
those flight stands add less height to the model than putting them on a single layer of fork would lol. That falls under "roughly the same size" and is why it's the only example you can find of this "precedent", and is definitely not a parallel or precedent to this issue here. Crisis suits are the exception, not the rule, and if taking suppressors off their stands on accounted for the height of their feet then that wouldn't be an issue either, as we've already said if it was modelled to have a roughly similar height that would be fine.
Agreed.
Honestly though, for casual games I really don't care. You've put effort into making your models look how you want. Fine, cool.
In a competitive setting I do think it matters though.
Crimson wrote: This thread needs picture. I got my box and instantly modelled my Suppressors for advantage. It took quite a bit cutting, but I think they turned well. An old-school Infiltrator for height comparison.
these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All your stuff always looks great Crimson those are really inspiring.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/16 19:19:21
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
Maybe it depends on the local TO but over various editions I've had no issues with models that have been in some cases 1-2 inches higher than another model that's exactly the same.
From crisis suits, marine HQ's and one of the guys I play against has 2 riptides that are atleast 2 inches in hight different and they've never been had hassle.
This sounds like people projecting a problem into the rules that isn't RAW the issue you think it is.
SHUPPET wrote: Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes.
I think we disagree on what 'common sense' dictates in this instance...
Sigh. I didn't say this specific instance was defined by common sense, there's quite clearly enough of you who got it wrong to prove that. I'm saying that the recent ITC updates were in parts, and that Bacon's statements basically say "don't attend tournaments".
There is nothing unfair about disallowing modelling for advantage. In fact it makes the game more fair, and has to be enforced in some manner or other, or else as I said earlier, Carnifex heads attached to bases "tunnelling" up the field happens. You have to draw the line somewhere and whether or not you define that as "arbitrary" does not make it at all unfair - significant / vastly different LoS profiles to the standard IS an unfair advantage and to even equate that with "no different to banning purple colour schemes" just shows the depth of absurdity in BaconCatBug's statement.
SHUPPET wrote: these look great, but if you set them up against me at a competitive event I would immediately call a T.O. over. That's an unmistakabls advantage in how you've modelled them, the only question is what sort of setting you plan to use them in.
And any tournament that makes up arbitrary and unfair rules is no tournament worth going to. It would be no different to a tournament that gave all pink models +1T or banned all purple models.
Lol what? Modelling for advantage is a rule in some form or another for every single tournament. Common sense is a driving force behind the recent ITC code of conduct changes. Your post may as well say "it's not worth going to tournaments".
Maybe it depends on the local TO but over various editions I've had no issues with models that have been in some cases 1-2 inches higher than another model that's exactly the same.
From crisis suits, marine HQ's and one of the guys I play against has 2 riptides that are atleast 2 inches in hight different and they've never been had hassle.
This sounds like people projecting a problem into the rules that isn't RAW the issue you think it is.
You've already had this addressed and it's beyond clear that fractional changes like give or taking an inch off a Riptide or the difference in height between a standing crisis and the millimetres it gains on its flight stand, are not what anyone is referring to when they are talking about modelling for advantage. Slicing a model's height in half is, and would be moderated at MOST (not all, I can't verify where you play) competitive ITC tournaments if an opponent called a judge on it. An inch isn't huge to a Riptide, you could see that just by having him leaning forward or something. Take that same inch off the height of a squad of Marines for example though and see how many T. O. s let that rock. I remember a guy who tried to model his Riptide laying down once lol. the fact is the thread asks what will be considered modelling for advantage, and the answer to this one is that it will vary from tournament to tournament, but yes, many places will consider this level of height alteration to be modelling for advantage and to say otherwise would be pretty irresponsible advice. If the question is for casual play than the answer is basically whatever your opponent is willing to play against, but it seems most would be willing to play against it in a casual setting.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/03/16 20:51:37
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
