"modeling for advantage" - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    30
    Posts
    294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    17 (x1)

    "modeling for advantage"

    Hi, I have been thinking alot about this since 5th came out with it's true line of sight.

    The height of models and bases.

    In 5th you need to be able to draw a los from the head of the model firing (or the weapon on a tank) to the intended target.

    Take tau and eldar skimmers and jetbikes, anything on a flying base.

    According to the big rule book a model cannot be put on a smaller base, but may be placed on a larger base. Thus it would be legal to place an eldar jetbike on a 5" tall flying base (imagine transporting that in a case )

    Anyhow, this jetbike would be able to see ALOT more of the battlefield than the enemy jetbike mounted on a standard ~2" tall base.
    This would work both ways, the jetbike on a 5" base would be able to shoot more (due to TLOS) but would also be voulnerable to alot more enemy fire.

    and to go the other way, model posing (take tyranids), modeling and posing a pure close combat fex/warrior/tyrant to be lower than the model would be if you just assembeled the kit "as is".
    This would often result in a cover save, the ability to move under things it might not be able to otherwise, and maybe even deny TLOS.
    And they would not need the TLOS since they are not shooting.

    There are models already getting the short end of the stick (see guard heavy weapons) since they are on their knees, they wont get as good of a TLOS over a wall/rubble/ruin as their comrades that are standing will.

    Some people may call it cheesy and unfair, and I personally have not done it **yet**.
    But as long as the model still looks good/natural (i.e not chopping of half the fex'es legs) is it cheating? is it legal?

    Personally I would not mind an eldar jetbike army on 5"-10" flying bases , as my hw squads would cut them to pieces as they could not hide... anywhere. I might get annoyed with very low CC models, but not really, as I would simply have to adapt... I mean, who can be mad just because the enemy learned how to duck?

    But it seems to be somewhat of a grey area..

    Any thoughts?

    Cheers


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Fun guy from Yuggoth Moglun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Age
    33
    Posts
    772
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    235 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by Valthonis View Post
    According to the big rule book a model cannot be put on a smaller base, but may be placed on a larger base.
    Well, now it just says that if you want to change your base size you should get your opponent's permission. Nothing about smaller/larger.

    As to the rest...
    I don't believe there are specific rules regarding what is okay to model and what is not, beyond WYSIWYG. However, the game is built according to certain conceptions of fair play, based on models of particular heights, bases, etc. Customising is assumed to be done to create "dynamic poses", not for any in-game benefit. Allowances are made so that posing your models will not cause disadvantage (see the bit about targetting the body rather than the arms etc). With this in mind, I personally don't feel that it's very courteous to customize your models in such a way that they gain advantages over unposed models.
    Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen.

  4. #3
    Member R3con's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    17 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Moglun View Post
    I personally don't feel that it's very courteous to customize your models in such a way that they gain advantages over unposed models.

    And keeping this in mind i think the guy who did so would have a hard time finding people to play against.....
    For Michigan Apoc news and meetups.. www.mi40k.com

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    30
    Posts
    294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    17 (x1)

    They removed the legal base size section? thats odd, because I have been told (and have read about in recent threads) that you cant base a model on a smaller base than the one it comes with (see chaos termies, or termies/crisis suits)

    Offcourse it would be bad for pickup games against people you do not know, and tournaments. But things like flying bases are often easy to swap out for the normal bases.

    But I guess if both players agree then its good to go (as with everything else).

    but remember that modeling like this would swing both ways (the skimmer/jetbike on a 5-10" stand would be a prime target for every singel 36"+ ranged weapon on the board (unless playing with giant terrain).

    But yes, I can see people being upset if they are expecting a normal army in a normal game, and getting the high flying eldar army of doom.

    But since I have yet to try modeling for advantage, its just at well that I just dont do it.
    It might be fun, but not worth getting boo'ed at and loosing people to play against

    Cheers

  6. #5
    Dark Eldar Zealot Wicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Menai Sydney Australia
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,699
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    434 (x8)

    With true line of sight anything with a high ballistic level is going to benefit with a higher operating height and anything assault based is going to thrive on the opposite.

    So modeling for advantage with regards to height stinks even more than ever and does anyone really want their Skimmers to become Flyers?
    In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

  7. #6
    Airborne Mastershake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,664
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    479 (x8)

    How 'bout modelling huge, swivelling banners on your rhinos to block LoS? Seen it done. It was actually quite hilarious as the guy railed against an opponent who dared to shoot at units behind the rhino's saying that he "Had to do it". He sucks at the game of course, as do most individuals who do this kind of modelling and got his ass kicked. Generally I find players with skill realize they don't need this kind of stupidity, so you can take heart in beating the shit out of those who revert to these tactics.
    Blais's Paint Studio-Getting broken armies good soft scores since 2009

  8. #7
    Junior Member A.T.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,390
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    430 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastershake View Post
    How 'bout modelling huge, swivelling banners on your rhinos to block LoS? Seen it done.
    It was suggested during one of my games that the rules mention drawing LoS from weapons on vehicles, but nothing about how they were attached.
    Guns on long slinky-like springs came to mind, that could be stretched over the entire battlefield without ever moving the vehicle or changing it's overall size.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    30
    Posts
    294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    17 (x1)

    Hehe, I would pay to see both the rhino banners and the slinky weapons

    But you are right, modeling should be reserved for cool poses.

    Besides, looking at both my tyrant and my fex, I cant really se how I could pose them to make their profile more than what.. 0.2" lower. Thus making it pointless as well as cheaty.

    Also, I heard of someone putting both the flamestorm cannons on the land raider redeemer on the same side. Is this legal? the player doing it said that GW never said anything on how/where you could mount the weapons.
    Personally I think it would look stupid, But you would get alot more hits on a unit if both flamers where on the same side.

    BUT, on another subject (kind of) , the GW flying bases, do you have to use them? or can you use something else (that WONT break when I touch them) as long as the base is the same diameter and its not taller or lower than the standard sticks?

    Cheers
    Last edited by Valthonis; January 10th, 2009 at 04:51.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    Just to make things clear,

    "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic
    base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before
    they can be used in the game.
    Some players like to mount their models on impressive
    scenic bases. As mounting your models on differentsized
    bases might affect the way they interact with the
    rules, make sure before the game that your opponent
    does not mind this."

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    61 (x0)

    Quote Originally Posted by Valthonis View Post
    Also, I heard of someone putting both the flamestorm cannons on the land raider redeemer on the same side. Is this legal? the player doing it said that GW never said anything on how/where you could mount the weapons.
    edit: Ooh! Make sure he places the template from the back sponson in a way so that it's not touching his front one, or else he's hitting a friendly model :-D

    I think the counter argument to that would be the fact that Citadel models come with instructions on how they're to be assembled, and there's an assumption in the BRB that when you're talking about a "sponson-mounted" or "hull-mounted" weapon it limits your line of fire in a particular way. If someone were to say to me "I mounted my sponsons on the front!" I'd say "Thats great, it has line of sight like a sponson still." I did once see a little kid with a landraider built that way, I let it slide in that instance but if an older player tried to do something like that I wouldn't let it fly and I'd be surprised if anyone else at my FLGS would either.
    Last edited by Deris87; January 10th, 2009 at 19:08.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts