Thoughts on Shrike and base remodeling?

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Okay, so... I've heard of people removing/reworking the big fugly rock that is Shrike's base - I did the same thing - and being accused of modeling for advantage. I'd like to hear from the community on this. Is my Shrike illegal for modeling for advantage reasons, or is it reasonable the Chapter Master should be allowed to be roughly the same size as other characters? I feel that Shrike should be roughly the same sort of size as your average infantry character, like the other Primaris named characters like him (Feirros, Tigurius, Kor'sarro, Garadon, Adrax, Calgar) but half the plastic on his sprue is the damned bunker rock. This is my Shrike for reference for what I'm talking about. Thoughts?

[Gederas]

Paging duz, paging duz

 

In all honesty, I don't think so. Especially since the only "advantage" you gain is.... him not being as visible. Which would matter..... If he was a character with more than 10 wounds

Edited November 10, 2019 by Gederas

[Bryan Blaire]

Where can someone find this "modeling for advantage" rule in the rulebook so that folks can read it? It's hard to make a rule determination on legality without knowing what the wording of the rule is.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I just control+F'd my entirely legitimate PDF of the rulebook for "modeling for advantage" and couldn't find a thing. I don't think there's any rule for it.

Edit: In fact, I just control+F'd every instance of the word "advantage" in the rulebook and they all refer to ingame advantages which can be gained through Stratagems or missions or something.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Zephaniah Adriyen

[Bryan Blaire]

So I found there's no rule for it, the only way it could be ruled illegal would be by a mutually agreed to house-rule, right? Does your club or gaming establishment have such a house rule that everyone agreed to, and if so, what are the modeling parameters allowed before something is determined to be "modeling for advantage"?

 

If there's no hard and fast established terms for this, then any modification of a GW model should be disallowed under the term - if you've added an extra bit or removed a bit that was originally on a model, then you have "modeled for advantage" because there's no established terms for the ruling and what one person thinks is an advantage or disadvantage might be the opposite for someone else.

 

(Yes, I'm being dense because I know there is no rule on this and people like to throw around things that aren't in the rulebook because they fear losing or want to put their opponents at an immediate disadvantage.)

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

It's not in the main rulebook but it's part of the most popular tournament rulesets such as the ITC and it's a very well known principle in the community so saying "it's not in the main rulebook" probably isn't going to fly. But it also means it's a grey area and can vary between individual interpretation.

 

I can personally sympathize, I don't like Shrike's base and I don't think hobbyists should have to endure a base they don't like on an already pricey model, but I also understand why people would consider it modeling for advantage and not allow it. On one hand, GW could have just done this for cool factor, just like they made 32mm and 28mm bases and put Krom Dragongaze on a 40mm base. On the other hand, it could have been done on purpose, just like Inceptors and Suppressors with the Fly keyword being on raised bases. However, one could argue that jump pack Marines aren't modeled in the air, so it's fair game to have Primaris Fly infantry standing on the ground as well.

 

I don't think there's a cut and dry answer for this one, but at the end of the day, if the tournament organizer or your opponent feels it's modeling for advantage, the community will probably err in their favor. At the very least, you can simply model Shrike how you like, and let your opponent measure sight to him as if he was on his normal base. That should honestly solve 99% of issues.

[Bryan Blaire]

So any flying model that has been removed from its original flying stand is also 'modeling for advantage', right?

 

I don't play by the ITC stuff and only agree to house rules in person before the game - rules don't change during the game, and if folks want to discuss models, it better happen before the game starts, but after the army lists are exchanged for play (and the tourney rules are always the biggest pile of house rules one can find).

 

Does anyone implement 'modeling for disadvantage' benefits for opponents that have wildly altered their models that make it easier for opponents to target them? If not, people are playing by some pretty funny double standards out there...

 

Hell, if people are really concerned about the block - take it with you and stand it on Shrike's head when they are targeting him.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

My usual opponent's pretty chill about this stuff (what with using Dark Angels and a green Feirros as Iron Hands) and I don't play tournaments. In addition, I've seen quite a few Inceptors and Suppressors converted to walking stances around the Internet at large.

Observe.

[Bryan Blaire]

If "altered from GW's standard" is the basis for "modeled for advantage," then every single one of those models in ZA's post is "modeled for advantage" (except for that Infiltrator, maybe, although does the use of that Mk6 helm on a model that normally doesn't have it count?).

[Marshal Loss]

To be perfectly blunt, anybody who takes issue with what you've done with Shrike's base is not the kind of person you want to be playing with.

[Gederas]

To be perfectly blunt, anybody who takes issue with what you've done with Shrike's base is not the kind of person you want to be playing with.

Unless you're at an ITC event. Then it's expected because people are expected to be "That Guy" at tournaments. :lol:

[Ranulf]

*Mr. Duz, could you please report to the Shrike base thread, Mr. Duz...*

 

 

Seriously, this 'modelling for advantage' rubbish is a sign of sickness in the competitive aspect of our hobby. I have no problem with what you've done - if I lose a match, it's unlikely to be because your Warlord is half an inch shorter than he was stock.

 

-Ran

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

*Mr. Duz, could you please report to the Shrike base thread, Mr. Duz...*

 

 

Seriously, this 'modelling for advantage' rubbish is a sign of sickness in the competitive aspect of our hobby. I have no problem with what you've done - if I lose a match, it's unlikely to be because your Warlord is half an inch shorter than he was stock.

 

-Ran

Actually, I feel like the list I'm gonna be running for this lad is gonna have a bit more of a chance - primarily for its raw power. Half brand-new Marines releases, half Codex Custodes.

[duz_]

I've had mixed feedback from TOs about it

Some say yes others no

 

It's stupid

 

Do what you want but be prepared to put him on a bottle cap or something to prop him up to appease the feeble minded <_<

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I've had mixed feedback from TOs about it

Some say yes others no

 

It's stupid

 

Do what you want but be prepared to put him on a bottle cap or something to prop him up to appease the feeble minded

He has spoken!

[duz_]

On a related note I have been considering emailing the GW faq team to ask for their opinion of it because as you mentioned it's not any where in the rules and I couldn't actually find it in the current version of the itc rules either

 

I just haven't come up with the best wording of the question yet because it's so dumb...

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

"Dear Games Workshop,

Some people in the hobby have accused myself and others like me of 'modeling for advantage' because I and others have modified the model for Chapter Master Kayvaan Shrike on account of his rather bulky and oversized basing diorama, and almost seem to be citing a rule when they do so. Can you clear up the idea of 'modeling for advantage' as a concept?"

[Bryan Blaire]

Given that the height of flying models was brought up per Tyberos (and I think it's a valid point), and it is an interesting possibility, has anyone measured the height to the head of the Inceptors, Suppressors, and Shrike on their original GW stands/bases?

 

I'm wondering if there is an equivalency in heights between them - if so, and there is some kind of "GW standard" regarding the height of those flying models, then from a game play perspective, it is likely designed to take the height into account. A counterpoint to that would be if the other models with the FLY Keyword (that aren't actual aircraft) don't have an equivalent height (Celestine, etc.), then it is hard to say whether the height equivalency is by design or not.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Aah, I would, but I actually don't have an unmodified one of any of those. I don't own Suppressors, my Shrike's modded and my Inceptors are parts models with busted stuff and no fly stems.

[Closet Skeleton]

I've heard people claim that using unmodified kits that are smaller than the current kit is 'modeling for advantage' so whatever. Basically if an opponent complains in a tournament you tell them they can draw line of sight as though the models are the out of box height and then mark down their sportsmanship at your discretion.

 

Modeling for advantage is a silly concept, I've been screwed over under 8th ed's supposed 'line of sight rules' by having space marines with their swords in the air or cloaks that are swaying away from their base, would making sure no one is waving a sword around be 'modeling for advantage'.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[Slave to Darkness]

I've heard people claim that using unmodified kits that are smaller than the current kit is 'modeling for advantage' so whatever.

Yep, I still get it for using my 1st ed Greater Daemons. 

[battle captain corpus]

It's you mini and hobby bud. I've got plenty of minis on dynamic bases etc and I have never been accused of modelling for advantage. Truth be told I do find it the lowest of the low accusing people of it that dont deserve it either. If its blatant then I guess so...but even then....it's just minis at the end of the day. :)

 

BCC

[Jukkiz]

Reminds me of Chaos 3-3,5 edition chaos gifts and modelling daemon princes. Some just took the specific gifts and played their lord as daemon prince even though codex said they should be on bigger bases and certain height too

[Slave to Darkness]

Reminds me of Chaos 3-3,5 edition chaos gifts and modelling daemon princes. Some just took the specific gifts and played their lord as daemon prince even though codex said they should be on bigger bases and certain height too

We only enforced that when you took Daemonic Stature. Stopped people being anal over nothing. 

[Ciler]

As an argument to support that you are NOT modelling for advantage, I would like to look at the problem the other way around.

 

A mate of mine has converted the below model as a techmarine gunner :

 

As everyone can see, the model is raised significantly higher by the cork piece, making it more difficult to hide from LoS. Actually, his entire army is built with this type of base, so it is higher than "standard" primaris models. Can he claim to having a disadvantage ?