Modeling for advantage

[DarkLink]

Real life example. The player who got 3rd or 4th (?) at wargames con had a bunch of Thudd guns. This is what a Thudd gun is supposed to look like:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Thudd&Crew4.jpg


This are (allegedly) his Thudd guns:

http://mob1312.photobucket.com/albums/t531/Chumbalaya/20130608_080534_zps6adaa547.jpg?t=1370748449

Note the lack of 60mm bases. I'd bet he couldn't fit half of those guns on the Skyshield Landing Pad if he modeled them properly. That's more than a little sketchy.

[daboarder]

Real life example. The player who got 3rd or 4th (?) at wargames con had a bunch of Thudd guns. This is what a Thudd gun is supposed to look like:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Thudd&Crew4.jpg


This are (allegedly) his Thudd guns:

http://mob1312.photobucket.com/albums/t531/Chumbalaya/20130608_080534_zps6adaa547.jpg?t=1370748449

Note the lack of 60mm bases. I'd bet he couldn't fit half of those guns on the Skyshield Landing Pad if he modeled them properly. That's more than a little sketchy.

Whats the coloured guns? Lascannons? are they on a defense line base?

oh right they are meant to be sabre defense platforms?

the thing is, its artillery, so the crew are therefore meant to be on their own base, except then it wouldn't be modeled like in the photo...see the artillery rules for both fantasy and 40k have always been screwy about the guns themselves needing bases, I mean until last year they we're vehicles (the guns that is). unless it was a new list its not something I'd really call the bloke on.

caveat: I still don't think I'd play a game against someone pulling that on me in a friendly setting.

[DarkLink]

As far as I can see, there are no actual exceptions in the rules for not using bases with artillery. In casual games, who really cares (except in circumstances like this), but in tournaments you stick to the rules. Sabers and Thudd guns both come on 60mm bases, so if you play them, they should be on 60mm bases. Normally it wouldn't be a big deal, but this is one case where base size matters, a lot.

[rle68]

i think you guys are being to kind... if he indeed did this its flat out cheating in my opinion

[daboarder]

As far as I can see, there are no actual exceptions in the rules for not using bases with artillery. In casual games, who really cares (except in circumstances like this), but in tournaments you stick to the rules. Sabers and Thudd guns both come on 60mm bases, so if you play them, they should be on 60mm bases. Normally it wouldn't be a big deal, but this is one case where base size matters, a lot.

I don't believe that sabre come with a base at all to be honest, that being said the actual model does take up roughly the same amount of room., have the thud-gunns always been supplied with a base or is that new?

[Magpie]

Why would you even deploy your guns like that anyway? Going to be majorly screwed is someone gets in close or comes up from behind.

[daboarder]

4++ from the shield

[Magpie]

4++ from the shield

Not if you are assaulting it.

[DarkLink]

There was a whole thread on whether or not you actually could assault them if they filled up the entire area of the shield.

[Magpie]

There was a whole thread on whether or not you actually could assault them if they filled up the entire area of the shield.

Yeh I saw that one. I reckon you can.

[Thruzal]

Thudd guns don't come with bases nor in fact the crew that goes with it. I usually set them up however with the 3 crew around the guns and the gun you know, facing in the dof.

One could even argue that putting them on a base is doen the same thing. As far as I've understood it, it is not just a multi wound model, it has crew too. The crew just uses the the toughness and models still use the their save or the gun depending on who is closer. But once the gun loses both wounds(heavy art has 4 wounds) or crew is dead. The aren't shooting anymore lol. I would argue also the since thud guns heavy mortar and the heavy arty carriages are immobile. They have fire arc so 5 of those aren't shooting crap.

[Thruzal]

Oh and don't forget the crew has to be with in 2 in to fire it to. So, yeah most sketchy

[daboarder]

you are correct about the bases, thudd guns do not come with a supplied base...or crew, interesting.

As to fire arcs, these are not vehicles therefore they do not suffer from fire arcs.

I think ultimately as with many things FW the rule should tpically be, don't be a d*ck

[Wolfshade]

I think I would be "unhappy" with this configuration, while not supplied with bases and so not required to have them, I cannot see any crew on this photograph so it is unclear how they could be fired...

[energongoodie]

I think I would be "unhappy" with this configuration, while not supplied with bases and so not required to have them, I cannot see any crew on this photograph so it is unclear how they could be fired...

Agreed.
This just isn't cricket.
We have a fella at my group who refuses to put is IG heavy weapons teams on bases. This leads to him swapping who is manning the weapons when guys get removed.
I've started taking 60mm bases down to help him out.

[eldargal]

As a lipstick feminist I approve of modeling for advantage.

Just not in this context.;) No crew, no shooting. Not sure I'd play someone who tried to do this, in my opinion it's rolled up newspaper to the nose time.

[Wolfshade]

I've just realised my whole job is modelling for advantage.

[bfmusashi]

On a related note. IG heavy weapons didn't have bases either, but should an opponent be required to keep the ammo hauler in contact?

[Wolfshade]

Some do some don't, it is a frustrating inconsistency.

I think the "modern" ones catchan & cadian are on a base, but they are slightly different as they are not artillery per se but are usually treated as a two wound model. Rather than gun and crew like for instance the thunderfire cannon

[Nabterayl]

Heavy weapons teams are a semi-different case, in my opinion. A heavy weapons team is not two models anymore; it's one model with two Wounds. Modeling that as two separate models is just not accurate, even though it's annoying that some models are sold in a non-accurate way.

My reaction to the Thudd gun situation is ... legal, but still a d*ck move. It's not gentlemanly, and I would be upset in the personally offended way if an opponent wanted to play like this. That said, assuming they in fact don't come with bases, so long as the crew of each Thudd gun is within 2" of its gun(s), I think it's legal.

[40kGamer]

People sure get creative... :rolleyes: I thought that the crew had to stay in coherency with the guns... artillery or heavy weapons. Old guard were seperate models but the newer plastic ones do come with the large base for mounting. I use FW regularly but I mount everything on equivalent 40k bases regardless of what FW supplies... Real pain with older FW fliers!

[Nabterayl]

Well, the crew in that picture very well could be in coherency with the guns - and since they're using barrage weapons, the usual restrictions about both gunner and gun needing to see the target are not relevant. DarkLink's point, I think, is simply that there are more guns on the platform than the player could probably get if he had modeled them all on 60mm bases.

[40kGamer]

Well, the crew in that picture very well could be in coherency with the guns - and since they're using barrage weapons, the usual restrictions about both gunner and gun needing to see the target are not relevant. DarkLink's point, I think, is simply that there are more guns on the platform than the player could probably get if he had modeled them all on 60mm bases.

From the picture I doubt that half of what is on the platform should fit. I'm pretty sure that the actual Sabre defense guns have a larger footprint then the converted ones being used there as well. So I'd have to call cheese! Of course with the stupid amount of Necron cheese flying around this could be viewed as cheese on cheese action. :)

[Learn2Eel]

This isn't really a hypothetical, as it is something I really want to do; if I lay a damaged Nemesis Dreadknight on the monster base it came with, along with other cool scenery, as a cinematic "recent kill"/raised up wreckage/corpse for the Swarmlord I plan on getting in the next year, would that be counted as modeling for advantage? The Swarmlord would be in a cinematic pose, moving over the Dreadknight's body, striking fear into all the enemies by boosting its height and destroying such a powerful adversary so thoroughly - the Dreadknight suit and pilot will both have visible damage from where the Swarmlord's bone sabres cut through. Another option for me is the idea that as the Swarmlord destroyed the Dreadknight with the sabres, it snapped up the pilot in its jaws, "crunched him", and threw him to the side - the pilot would be flat on the ground, with his entrails spilling out/body torn almost in half.

Would this qualify as modeling for advantage, or be allowed in regular play? I want the leader of my Hive Fleet to be as imposing and impressive as possible, and I have a spare Dreadknight from my old Grey Knight army. Cheers for any input.

[Sly]

For a ground MC, I don't see why raising it on a scenic base would be an ADVANTAGE.

For the gun platforms... if they are sold without bases, then it should be legal to just put down the model and 2 crew on 25mm bases within 2" of the gun. Granted, they're asking for incoming blasts/template weapons, but perhaps they feel that the invulnerable save gained is worth it.

[Wolfshade]

I think as always the rule of cool would take precendence.

If you were playing in tournament then you may fall foul of the "models must be attached to the base that they are supplied with" rule.

I am not sure if you would be modelling for benefit here at all. You would be higher up and so more easly seen and therefore shot at, the down side would be the base size would mean that your synapse coverage was larger and the ability or chance rather to multi charge units increased.

Could you magnetise it so have the "kill" as a display base and the standard size one for normal games?

A bit like Angron from FW?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/FW/uk2012/Angron/angbase.jpg

[40kGamer]

Since the Dreadknights base is larger than the Swarmlord's you are changing the models footprint. I have a similar issue with marine bikes that I modeled with decorative converted 40mm oblong bases before GW released the 25mm versions. So now mine technically take up too much room... however it is often a disadvantage for your base to be larger so this has never been a problem in games.

On another note what is "acceptable" basing when GW changes bases with new releases. Specifically thinking of how Wraithguard went from 25 to 40mm bases.


I think as always the rule of cool would take precendence.

If you were playing in tournament then you may fall foul of the "models must be attached to the base that they are supplied with" rule.


Ack! Didn't refresh my screen. :)

[Bitrider]

Since the Dreadknights base is larger than the Swarmlord's you are changing the models footprint. I have a similar issue with marine bikes that I modeled with decorative converted 40mm oblong bases before GW released the 25mm versions. So now mine technically take up too much room... however it is often a disadvantage for your base to be larger so this has never been a problem in games.

On another note what is "acceptable" basing when GW changes bases with new releases. Specifically thinking of how Wraithguard went from 25 to 40mm bases.



Ack! Didn't refresh my screen. :)

Page 3 of the BRB states that you use the bases that come with the model. I have 20 metal Wraithguard that will continue to use the bases they were supplied with when I bought them.

Someone else talked about still using the small bases the terminators came with way back when.

[Apollinarius]

Real life example. The player who got 3rd or 4th (?) at wargames con had a bunch of Thudd guns. This is what a Thudd gun is supposed to look like:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Thudd&Crew4.jpg


This are (allegedly) his Thudd guns:

http://mob1312.photobucket.com/albums/t531/Chumbalaya/20130608_080534_zps6adaa547.jpg?t=1370748449

Note the lack of 60mm bases. I'd bet he couldn't fit half of those guns on the Skyshield Landing Pad if he modeled them properly. That's more than a little sketchy.

It certainly looks fishy. On the other hand, you can just run up to the platform base, turn off the shield, and drop one large large template barrage weapon to get something like 30 wounds with no saves of any kind because no cover, no invulnerable.

[Nabterayl]

It certainly looks fishy. On the other hand, you can just run up to the platform base, turn off the shield, and drop one large large template barrage weapon to get something like 30 wounds with no saves of any kind because no cover, no invulnerable.
No you can't. Nobody can change the pad's configuration if both sides are in contact with it, per page 115.

[lobster-overlord]

As a lipstick feminist I approve of modeling for advantage.


What color?

I agree that modeling some things is fun. This isn't modeling for advantage, this is positioning for douch-baggery. I have 1 squad of Cadian infantry that I modeled using the kneeling legs from the HWT. They sit lower and thus gain better advantage behind terrain without losing LOS. Yes, it's modeled for advantage, but it's one unit and they have a specific purpose. Modeling using the prone sniper catachan model does the same. Still legal 100%, but the model is laying flat and thus has a reduced profile when trying to hit it. When it's creative, it's cool, when it's meant to be a rules lawyer/WAAC player, then there's no purpose in playing that person.

My favorite is still the Lictor who is built with a tree on the base, thus bringing his own terrain with him ;-)

John M>

[-Tom-]

My favorite is still the Lictor who is built with a tree on the base, thus bringing his own terrain with him ;-)

John M>

I have some rangers that I started modelling with trees on their bases... though I'm not going to claim they get a cover save from their own base in any game ;) However, I just didn't have room to put the trees etc onto 2.5cm bases, so I had to go for terminator bases. Now, arguably with rangers this gives me a hinderance rather than a benefit for a) being able to cram them in nice and tight behind cover, and b) opponents being able to engage more of them in CC maybe, and they're not good CC troops themselves.

However, I've also gone for a similarly ornate base for my Farseer and Autarch, and arguably there it would give me an advantage if they can touch more models in CC, or I suppose if you measured from the edge of the base to see who would be within range to buff with psychic powers etc. At the end of the day though, I don't play many games and probably unlikely to play in serious tournaments, so it's more about the painting and modelling anyway.