PDA

View Full Version : GW approves of modelling for advantage.



mistrmoon
22-01-2011, 05:02
So for those of you who don't know modelling for advantage is when you build a specific model in a way it was not originally designed for in order to gain an advantage with the new LOS rules. This is usually done by adding a tall scenic base (a large rock) to a wizards base. This is generally frowned upon and isn't allowed in most tournaments. And yet GW has decided in their infinite wisdom that modelling for advantage is a legitimate tactic.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=2&aId=13300007a&multiPageMode=true&start=3

All you 40k players better watch out for my new 'tunnelling tyranid' army, coming to a tournament near you. The best part is i wont even have to buy models other then a lot of bases and enough sand to make bugs bunny dirt trails.

sknich
22-01-2011, 05:09
The difference is they are modelling an official GW model on an official GW Base. No scenic base or tall rock. I don't see anything definite here at all. Plus anything written in White Dwarf or their online site is there solely to sell models, not talking about fair game play. Look at how terrible their battle reports are!

stiggie
22-01-2011, 07:18
i agree with sknich...

it just means if you was building say a land raider... u could put the las cannons at the front of the tank so you gain an extra inch or 2 range out of it...

as opposed to building an extending arm with the las cannons on so you gain even more...

Torpedo Vegas
22-01-2011, 07:29
snip

Indeed. One article on the GW main sight suggesting that you build a model so that it is tall completely proves that GW wants people to model for advantage. Your logic is infallible.

theorox
22-01-2011, 09:41
It's not even a conversion. It's a standard way to build a GW kit. :)

Theo

Haravikk
22-01-2011, 10:52
I built a High Elf mage of mine using the mage kit, but couldn't decide which of the two scenic bases to use (stacks rocks or flame/water) so I decided to use both so he's now standing on stacked rocks on top of a plume of water, with a 25mm base to stop him falling over (and because I used the nice 20mm one for a dark emissary, since the water would have hidden all the nice details).

I actually did this before 8th came out, so now naturally I get funny looks like I did it to cheat whenever I bring the model out, even though I resolve any line of sight disputes using his feet (as they're roughly where his head would be if he was standing on the ground).

That said, no-one round my way bothers that much with true line of sight, we still abstract to some degree, though as a general rule anything that isn't blocked by impassible terrain or a building is fair game, with a penalty for units in the way, irrespective of height of the various models. The only thing we really consider is if a unit is on a hill, in which case we ignore the penalty for shooting over units that are at ground level.

Warrio
22-01-2011, 11:31
Nice find, good to know.

Korraz
22-01-2011, 13:07
You can hit more and makes you easier to hit. *shrug*

BigbyWolf
22-01-2011, 15:30
You can hit more and makes you easier to hit. *shrug*

This.

It really does work both ways. Although I am expecting to see someone remove the rocks from the High Elf dragon model and have it skimming millimeters above the base at some point...

IVEATCH
22-01-2011, 15:49
You can hit more and makes you easier to hit. *shrug*

This is the beauty of true line of sight. Whatever can see and shoot, fire, hurl rocks or bolts can be hit in return. As a long time 40K player, it's something that I accept readily. As an Ork (whoops, Orc) player I will launch spear chukka bolts at such a Skaven tower. Fair enough.

shelfunit.
22-01-2011, 16:11
I supose the only downside to this is that template weapons, (if playing against a "not modeled for advantage" army) still need to have TLoS to the point on the ground where they hit - a mage perched on a 6" high rocky outcrop can see the warmachines, but the warmachines still need to see his/her base to directly target the mage. Although I supose this ca be dealt with by making the warmachine taller etc, etc. Rather depressing really, looks like tourneys will be comprised of 3 feet tall mages and warmachines from now on then...

Gaargod
22-01-2011, 16:24
Also, in another example of GW doesn't read their own rules correctly (or are changing their mind), look at the doomwheel article:


.When speaking to Pete Foley, he recommended that you should consider the route you want your Doomwheel to take across the battlefield when you first deploy it. It can only travel in a straight line, so make sure you've got plenty of room to move before you choose a direction. As he pointed out 'crashing into woods is no joke for a Doomwheel, so drive with care'

Apart from the inherent irony in that actually, doomwheels care almost not at all about crashing into woods (oh no, D3 S4 hits on a T6 4+ model...), this is more than a little bit different to their previous stance on doomwheels, who used to be able to go wherever the hell they wanted.

Haravikk
22-01-2011, 17:19
Apart from the inherent irony in that actually, doomwheels care almost not at all about crashing into woods (oh no, D3 S4 hits on a T6 4+ model...), this is more than a little bit different to their previous stance on doomwheels, who used to be able to go wherever the hell they wanted.
Doesn't a Doomwheel count as a chariot for most purposes? If so then if it fails a dangerous terrain test it takes D6 wounds with no armour saves, which is certainly a bit more worrisome!


You can hit more and makes you easier to hit. *shrug*
That doesn't really help except against template weapons trying to hit you, and even then as shelfunit points out they are supposed to aim at the ground, though I believe stone throwers can aim at specific models (well cannons can too but they're guaranteed to miss if they do).
Against normal shooting it doesn't matter if the enemy has a three foot mage as it'll probably be in a unit so none of your shooting will go against them anyway unless you wipe out the unit.

t-tauri
22-01-2011, 22:01
A number of spam posts removed. If you want to spam please join the guild.

Fishslapper
23-01-2011, 01:34
It does appear that the model has been altered to be taller. However the one in the first picture looks a little stumpy to actually function anyway (the big stone would be scraping the ground). Whereas the second one actually looks a bit ugly to me....

At the end of the day, if you get a reputation as an idiot and you want to play advantages like these then nobody will want to play you and your victories are shallow.

Surgency
23-01-2011, 02:53
It does appear that the model has been altered to be taller. However the one in the first picture looks a little stumpy to actually function anyway (the big stone would be scraping the ground). Whereas the second one actually looks a bit ugly to me....

the model hasn't been altered. If you look at the article about it, the WLC/PCC can be built in one of 3 manners, depending on if you want it high or low

Chain
23-01-2011, 14:46
If I were to remount a wood elf dragon on a chariot sized base and make it "Crawl" could i this way make it harder to gain TLOS?

what other options are their to make up for the disadvantage of the larger flank and target?

linuvian
23-01-2011, 21:16
It's not even a conversion. It's a standard way to build a GW kit. :)

Theo

QFT

I don't even understand why this thread exists outside of 'I want to complain about GW again'. This is a standard GW model that can be built in one of three poses. It's even in the instructions in the box!

They merely state that using one of the 'high' poses means that you have better LOS, something that anybody that has read the rules should be able to determine.

This would be the same as GW saying that using the HE Mage from IoB gives better LOS for magic missile than the "Mage with Annulian Crystal" (the one that is actually on foot and not 'floating'). Is i true? yes. Is it a tactical advantage to use one model over another? yes. Is it comparable to playing with an army with only bases and say 'my army is underground'? heck no - that's just stupid logic.

@Chain - there is none - you must use the base that is supplied with the model.

BigbyWolf
24-01-2011, 15:27
@Chain - there is none - you must use the base that is supplied with the model.

Even using the standard base for the S-type dragon, you could still legally model it to be closer to the ground. I think the thread is about modelling to your advantage in general, and not the PCC specifically.

enygma7
24-01-2011, 22:06
@Gaargod

Regarding the doomwheel, check out the skaven FAQ. It now follows the rules in the BRB for random movement and uses the standard chariot rules for dangerous terrain (as do the furnace and screaming bell). So the quote is actually correct - I get the impression they realised the rules were a mess and decided to standardise and simplify them.

Mindshred
25-01-2011, 11:03
Honestly, the weirdest thing I saw in the article was the thought that if your catapult kills three or four high elves, it's made back its points for that game. I'm sure that killing elves will be plenty helpful, but it won't matter how many the catapult kills if there's still one of those elves alive at the end of the game.

It just seemed a bit weird to judge a warmachine's effectiveness like that.

linuvian
25-01-2011, 14:02
I judge effectiveness of certain war machines based off of 1 of 2 criteria - does it:

A) kill more than its costs

or

b) Disrupt enemy plans (forcing panic tests or just altering their movement or soaking up fire, etc)

For a S2 catapult that can do indirect fire, I don't think it's going to do MUCH disrupting of enemy plans (unless it is by killing alot, see point A) - so it's effectiveness is mainly going to be judged by killing more than its worth - which typically breaks down to around 7 elves, 12 humans, 23 goblins, etc. etc.

My WFT on the other hand, isn't. It usually will draw alot of fire and USUALLY doesn't get its points back in a game - but it might draw all of the fire for a turn or two, and even then might have a chance to make its points back. But even if it doesn't, I would still claim my WFT was effective. Of course those rare times that I get a perfect template right over a massive horde of goldswords make me smile.... I also got a perfect shot on a unit of 12 ushabti before. Poor guy.

My 2 cents.

Makaber
25-01-2011, 16:53
Okay:

For the original post: Really? Really? If this is a serious concern, or an issue you and your friends struggle with often, I'd go out on a limb and say you and your friends are taking a game providing you a framework to play battles with your plastic soldiers a tad too seriously.

Also, catapults are tall. Cannons are low. The alternative to this percieved "problem" would be to have two separate kits (again, a tall catapult and a low cannon), solving what? Nothing! If anything, the speculative option would be to build it like the counter-intuitive low catapult, or (if anything has to be classified as an unfair advantage) the kinda cheeky and silly-looking tall cannon.

Now, second issue: Is it a triumph if the Plague Claw only kills three to four elves? I absolutely hate the "make it's points back" argument. It just showcases a fundamental lack of Warhammer understanding. In an army with relativly little shooting (you have some Jezzails, some slings, and some crazy ass war machines and weapon teams, unlike the big reliable blocks of Handgunners/Thunderers/Repeater Crossbowmen/Whatever), and weak troops, those three to four elves (assuming you target an expensive elite unit, costing about 45-60 points, pricey!) might be what allows you to win combat with your subpar clanrats. And what's the difference between losing a fight and winning a fight? Infinite percent.

Chain
25-01-2011, 17:25
QFT

@Chain - there is none - you must use the base that is supplied with the model.




Even using the standard base for the S-type dragon, you could still legally model it to be closer to the ground. I think the thread is about modelling to your advantage in general, and not the PCC specifically.



What if a placed it on a chariot sized base and made it visible where the border would be of the normal base size?

and i ofcause tell my opponent about this



I don't knw if i can make it bend the way i'd like but I very likely will give it a try




question regarding modelling


Would leaving the model in the sun make it bendable?(without breaking)

or might it be smarter to try hot warter?

Jericho
25-01-2011, 17:34
In all likelihood, neither will work very effectively. Thick plastic or pewter will not be easily bent without some serious (risky) efforts like carefully using a heat gun or something. Sunlight or warm water will not be enough. Thin resin maybe, but that's a whole different material to work with.

RanaldLoec
25-01-2011, 17:46
If you have a mother, sister, girlfriend, fiance or wife who owns a hair dryer on a low heat for a short while can make plastic more happy to do some crazy yoga bending tricks.

Chain
25-01-2011, 19:02
thanks for the suggestions


If I do try to do this with this metal dragon could the heater work to?


also i assmue i'd need leather/work gloves not to get burn marks on the fingers...


best to allow it to cool slowly or fast?


any other advice to give?

minionboy
26-01-2011, 16:59
This thread is just silly.

The model is assembled the correct way it comes out of the box, no conversion, no cutting, no melting, nothing. The instructions in the kit show to assemble the model in this manner, and it is actually on the box assembled in this exact way.

So no, GW did not say, "hey convert your dragons crawling on the ground to avoid being hit." What they did say was that if you assemble the model in one of the multiple correct ways to be assembled, it is taller.

Chain
26-01-2011, 19:42
This thread is just silly.

The model is assembled the correct way it comes out of the box, no conversion, no cutting, no melting, nothing. The instructions in the kit show to assemble the model in this manner, and it is actually on the box assembled in this exact way.

So no, GW did not say, "hey convert your dragons crawling on the ground to avoid being hit." What they did say was that if you assemble the model in one of the multiple correct ways to be assembled, it is taller.


Sounds to me like I should take the GW rules with a grain of salt for my WE army...

It's the army that'll be models i like not playably the best... I just hoped there was some kind of option to make up for the larger base i intend to field the dragon at

linuvian
27-01-2011, 03:13
One of my friends has a MASSIVE dragon that just doesn't fit on a base - not even close. It's on a flying stand and is probably about a foot tall.

What he does is that on the base he uses he also has the correct 50x50 base with a little stone that is a marker for the direction the dragon is facing. That way it's the same for gaming purposes - I haven't had any problems with it yet.

This is quite different than 'GW says I can make my dragon laying on the ground so you can't shoot me' though, in which case I would probably walk away from the battle because who knows what other rules crap would spew out of the same mouth.

If it's a cool conversion for the sake of being cool - go for it. If it's for tactical purposes, don't be 'that guy'...

Chain
27-01-2011, 21:59
One of my friends has a MASSIVE dragon that just doesn't fit on a base - not even close. It's on a flying stand and is probably about a foot tall.

What he does is that on the base he uses he also has the correct 50x50 base with a little stone that is a marker for the direction the dragon is facing. That way it's the same for gaming purposes - I haven't had any problems with it yet.

This is quite different than 'GW says I can make my dragon laying on the ground so you can't shoot me' though, in which case I would probably walk away from the battle because who knows what other rules crap would spew out of the same mouth.

If it's a cool conversion for the sake of being cool - go for it. If it's for tactical purposes, don't be 'that guy'...


your right in that. That is also why i'd say if I were to do so i'd ask my opponent about their opinion before the battle start.
To pull it off mid game :eyebrows:


Also as i mentioned it was to make up for a weakness by giving it a larger base, it's something i'd have to talk with my opponent about ofcause it wouldn't be tournament stuff