modelling for advantage

[Boniface]

Hi guys,

 

I don't want to be accused of this at any point so i thought i would go by popular/prominent opinion. I personally dont have any issue with anyone else's modelling unless they are stupidly over the top like a 12" spear that can put you in range of something or a massively tall rock to fire off of.

 

Modelling for advantage is a concern that I have because I never want to cheat intentionally and someone might say my model is classed as cheating or something.

 

if you mount a character (HQ) on a bigger base (i.e. terminator sized), it seems to be that if that character has something that affects others it is MFA, if they dont it's ok. Any generic ruling here?

 

Can using readily available legitimate parts be classed as MFA?

For example I plan on creating a small 5 man squad using kneeling devastator legs because i want to represent them as hunkering down, however this does decrease LoS so i can see why people would have issue here. If i attach something to represent their height would this be ok?

 

Would using forge world parts/models be cheating?

The Avatar is much bigger (and better looking) therefore he has larger AoE. Some shields are big and could form a wall is this cheating?

 

I'm sure there are more issues than these but this is all i have at this time.

 

[AGPO]

IMO it's all about the intent. If someone has spent ages creating a really cool model it seems chirlish not to let them use it for some minor advantage. If someone is clearly doing it for the gaming advantage that's different, but to be honest I'd feel sorry for someone who wants to win in that manner. Best thing to do in my opinion is clarify things beforehand.

 

My regular oponents and I simply agree how scenery affects LoS to given models beforehand. We like to pose our models dynamically and agree that trying to make your models look good should never cost you in a game. In the case of your devs, you'd just agree that a certain barracade would block LoS to marines, kneeling or not.

[Dam13n]

I always used to put characters on the larger bases (even sergeants/champions) purely for aesthetic reasons. You can put more detail/lavish more attention on a larger base because of the greater surface area.

 

Realistically, unless the model has a special rule like Seth or Canis (hit every model in base-to-base once automatically) then the advantages and disadvantages of having a larger (more impressive) base tend to cancel out. ie. Better able to get into base-to-base due to larger base (just about), better LoS as can see over obstacles better. However a taller model is also easier to see and a wider base is easier to hit with templates.

 

Realistically unless you play comp. there shouldn't be a problem as most social gamers will concede to the "rule of cool" and allow it. Of course some may take issue and you can alleviate this by putting loads of effort into making the base look as cool as possible, that way it's easier to make your case against modelling for advantage claims.

[Fibonacci]

There is a simple solution to a lot of this.  When in doubt, just substitute a normal model in place of the posed model and look again.  Your Grand Master on a pedistol may look cool but put a regular tactical marine in his place and see if he can really look over that wall.

 

Regarding the kneeling devistator.  That is a standard GW model so even if you had a full squad of them, it is not modeling for advantage to use GW models as they come.  It is not always an advantage especially if they are behind a defense line, for example.

 

And finally, we have a convention out here that goes something like:

1. You can not gain an advantage through modeling.

2. You must accept any disadvantages through modeling.  You GM may be standing too tall to hide behind a rhino but you have to accept that he can be seen rather than substituting a similar model.

[Azash]

If your using standard GW parts designed to be used with that type of model then it wouldn't be modeling for advantage. Yes you may get cover saves easier but it is also easier to block the line of sight on a squad that is kneeling.

 

So as the above poster mentioned as long you accept the good with the bad and play it as it's modeled you should not have any issues even in a competitive environment. I only say should because we all know there is always "that guy" and we have all run across him at one time or another and that guy is a DB and will do DB things and make DB arguments.

 

If it is home made bits or 3rd party bits and you line your terminators up and they completely block a land raider from line of sight yes that would be modeling for advantage. A good rule I always follow is I try to stay in the same scale if I am customizing a model with 3rd party or sculpted/molded bits. So for example if you make your own Heavy Flamer for a speeder it should be the approximate size of the heavy bolter, and mm that comes with the kit if it's an inch longer then someone would have a legitimate argument for modeling for advantage.

 

I also don't think using forgeworld models is modeling for advantage as they are a subsidiary of GW. Its on the same scale and its using rules from an existing codex then there is no problem. In fact I went to a large tournament where someone in fact used the Forgeworld Avatar....all he got was compliments! Personally I prefer the forgreworld avatar to the GW avatar, the later is the micro mini pimp of the monstrous creatures and hardly looks the part of a raging god of war.

[Captain Idaho]

This needs to go to the Official Rules discussion forum.

[Hellios]

I have IG who are prone. I bought them from GW and they were prone. I doubt kneeling marines will cause you problems... As for heroic characters... They are more likely to cause you problems... I have a chaplain standing on top of a bit of Eldar Wreckage... He probably stands above a dread. Sure he gets more LoS... with his bolt pistol... However, the enemy can now shoot him and his squad from pretty much anywhere...

[Grey Mage]

Its nearly impossible to prove intent in most situations, so youre just left with a debate over wether or not whats been done to the model is 'fair'.

 

On days like that its useful to have a model that is the normal size/base just to use as a standin for important LOS issues. Other options include *for with larger bases when normally its 25mm* having a mark somehow built into the scenic base that shows the normal size for example.

 

Largely though Ive found it usually boils down to this: the cooler people in your area find your conversion to be the less they care about what you did to achieve it. Once its painted and looks awesome everything else tends to fall by the wayside.

[tvih]

I'm of the opinion that any modeling is clearly MFA and should be frowned upon. After all when you assemble a model you enable it to be used for gaming, thus garnering you an advantage. So unfair.

 

Anyway, this is one of the endless debates. In the end it's up to your individual opponents.

[Dam13n]

So tvih - are you advocating the army of empty bases??? No modelling required and can easily be used to represent any army with little to no effort required...

 

:P

[hobointherain]

I've come across this many times with Land Raiders. Now the Land Raider in question had the lascannons modeled in the forward access doors. The opponent argued that they were modeled that way to gain extra range and that the cannons should be modeled in the rear access doors. The marine player argued quite rightly that there are GW pics of raiders with the LC's in both forward and rear turrets and therefore there is no "correct" position for them. I decided to chip in at this point, because I enjoy arguing. I pointed out that if the LC's are in the rear positions, this means that the side access doors are positioned in the cannon's line of fire. So your termies storm out of the side door and are either cut to shreds by their LR's own guns or the LR has to cease fire until the termies are out of the way. Its logical that the guns would be in front, and the door behind, The turret provides not just cover, but also covering fire? am I right? 

[Azash]

I've come across this many times with Land Raiders. Now the Land Raider in question had the lascannons modeled in the forward access doors. The opponent argued that they were modeled that way to gain extra range and that the cannons should be modeled in the rear access doors. The marine player argued quite rightly that there are GW pics of raiders with the LC's in both forward and rear turrets and therefore there is no "correct" position for them. I decided to chip in at this point, because I enjoy arguing. I pointed out that if the LC's are in the rear positions, this means that the side access doors are positioned in the cannon's line of fire. So your termies storm out of the side door and are either cut to shreds by their LR's own guns or the LR has to cease fire until the termies are out of the way. Its logical that the guns would be in front, and the door behind, The turret provides not just cover, but also covering fire? am I right? 

 

I would agree but then again that is how I modeled my land raider and for that exact reason :)

[jeffersonian000]

Whether or not the sponsons on a Land Raider are mounted forward or back makes no difference to "Modelling for Advantage".  The model allows you the place the sponsons in either position per the instructions.  There are numerous pictures throughout official GW publications that depict the sponsons in either position.  As far as most people are concerned, if you chose to place your's on the back mounting points, you just "Modelled for Dis-Advantage", better known as "It looks good that way".

 

SJ

[Mr.darkness]

I don't mind people modelling their models in cool ways, but remember that I will also take advantage. For example, if you can see me, I xn see you, so don't try pulling that rubbish on me. Also, if they are prone, and trying to hide behind a wall, then no, they can't shoot me, because they cant see. Equally, it will be much more difficult for me to see you.