Terrorghiest shriek in close combat

[Aedin]

"Modeling for advantage much me thinks."

Yup............

Even if i did put the thing on a its back legs and modified it I would still measure where its eyes would have originally been.

Also have you considered that if you were trying to model to advantage by raising the model higher. You would be actually shortening its distance of fire in the tabletop because your measuring from its eyes not its base SOOOO the higher the model the shorter the distance across the table to reach your target.

You would take an 8 inch and actually make it 6 or maybe even 5 across the tabletop even though your measuring 8 "think about it".

 

[Melle]

what says u measure from eyes?
its the base, u don't measure from eyes in archers or other missile troops, do you?

 

[Aedin]

Whoops !

Yup your right page 6 BRB measure from one base to another to determine distance. With eyes to determine open line of sight.

That's what i get for taking a common sense approach.

(example) if a bullet has an effective killing range of 1 mile and you shoot it from 1.5 miles in the air it should not kill a target that is in a 1 inch horizontal line from yourself.

In other words a model put on a tower diorama on its base should have negatives for its supposed increased open line of sight advantage for "always" being on that tower wherever its moved to. If someone was actually trying to do this. Like I have always said use the original, unmodified, modern intended, models dimensions for determining LOS and base sizes.

Anything else is soo lame. :tongue:

 

[Ogul]

In our grop, if a huge dragon has it's head pointing down we still say that it can see over normal infantry. The dragon could easily raise its head for a better look. Anything else is just riddiculous..

 

[Count Matthewzilla]

I thought there was rule in any event about modeling for advantage. Don't have the BRB on me, can someone check that?

 

[Mad 'At]

I's just like to bring up the Skaven Warp Lightening cannon to this discussion. It can be build in three different ways each resulting in three different heights. If you build your WLC with the highest configuration is that modelling for advantaged? If not then what is really the differences from, by using only unmodified parts from the kit, building the TG in a higher pose (for example by using ZD parts)?

 

[midean]

In our group, if a huge dragon has it's head pointing down we still say that it can see over normal infantry. The dragon could easily raise its head for a better look. Anything else is just ridiculous..

So much this! It's a large dragon creature that should be able to see over any troops. Just cause GW went for a dramatic pose and people are using where it's eyes are to limit it's scream is a crock...

 

[Smogg]

I thought there was rule in any event about modeling for advantage. Don't have the BRB on me, can someone check that?

Page 368-369 is a section called "Converting Miniatures" really encourage this aspect of the hobby including altering poses.
No where does it state that a converted miniature must maintain it's eyes in the same position as the original version.

I think this is an area of the game where most in reality are able to find a good balance between being petty and exploiting the freedom given by converting.

For my part I am always happy to see my opponents fielding well made conversion with new cool designs. True, I might frown a bit if someone fielded some kind of chaos sorcerer with 3 8" eyestalks to gain a 360 dregree vision over the battlefield or a unit filler so big it would block LOS to some huge monster behind. But really, in reality none I game with would try pull something like that. They are just happy to show off their new creations.

To me the whole discussion about altering eye positions seems a bit petty, and in reality I think a TO would easily be able to call on if it was just a creative new position or something that was modeled with the sole purpose of gaining a big advantage in the game. I don't belive for a second that you somehow pay extra points for a war hydra just because it has several heads and eyes, or that the terrorghiest has some kind of reduced cost build in because of it low head position. If GW came out with a terrorgheist with a higher head position, do you really think they would alter the point cost?

Let's see some awesome conversions. Keep your heads high!

 

[Aedin]

I was referencing modeling to a point that it makes for an obvious in game advantage. Sorry if I was not clear on this.

Mad'at I don't have much experience with scaven. Do the instructions give 3 examples on how to build your WLC or do they depict just one way and you take it upon yourself to build it different?

You mentioned the ZD parts but the instructions for the kit are verry specific on what parts to use and how to assemble it.

 

[Yorga]

The WLC instructions show three different heights. I chose the lowest one because I like the look the best but I didn't realize the rule about LOS when I did so. Note that the WLC model came out before true LOS so GW probably didn't even think about that. I have some real issues with the Terrorgheist's eye position. I'd probably use it's spine to determine LOS. We'll have to see if my opponents get that anal about it.

 

[Mad 'At]

I see your point Aedin but still don't think there is that much difference.

I actually think the WLC was released after 8th edition Yorga, remember it came in a second wave. I at least know that GW's "What's new today" blog once wrote about it and said that it was a nice trick to build it high in order to (ab)use the TRoS-rule.

 

[Johnny-Crass]

Yupp the WLC was released with the 8th ed Skaven wave.

 

[crafty0ne]

Ok apparently this requires some clarification.

Line of sight is determined by looking from the actual current developed and unmodified models eyes not its mouth BRB p.10

I Literally have my BRB open to page ten on my lap as I'm writing this. Nowhere on this page does the phrase current developed and unmodified model appear. In fact, I cant find that phrase anywhere in the rulebook. Or in the latest FAQ. I don't know where this concept is coming from. Did I miss something in there?

This is why I don't like True LOS. Great in theory, better then the old system, but still needs some tweaking. I understand that some people out there will try to bend rules to there advantage. But damn it, I'm a converter, its the best part of the hobby for me, better then painting, better then playing, and I'll be damned if someone at a tournament tried to tell me I'm modelling for advantage. I'm modeling cause I love to model and cause it looks freaking awesome, not to gain a minuscule tactical advantage that may come up once in a battle, if that.

 

[Yorga]

Ok apparently this requires some clarification.

Line of sight is determined by looking from the actual current developed and unmodified models eyes not its mouth BRB p.10

I Literally have my BRB open to page ten on my lap as I'm writing this. Nowhere on this page does the phrase current developed and unmodified model appear. In fact, I cant find that phrase anywhere in the rulebook. Or in the latest FAQ. I don't know where this concept is coming from. Did I miss something in there?

This is why I don't like True LOS. Great in theory, better then the old system, but still needs some tweaking. I understand that some people out there will try to bend rules to there advantage. But damn it, I'm a converter, its the best part of the hobby for me, better then painting, better then playing, and I'll be damned if someone at a tournament tried to tell me I'm modelling for advantage. I'm modeling cause I love to model and cause it looks freaking awesome, not to gain a minuscule tactical advantage that may come up once in a battle, if that.

^^
This! People are adding words that don't exist. I mean if they specifically exclude impressive banners so they don't penalize someone, then why ding the person who makes a dynamic pose for their terrorgheist? It should be noted that this issue really only comes up with the terrorgheist in our army since just about everything else is upright. Seems silly that my banshee will have line of sight to a unit to scream at it when the giant terrorgheist in the same position does not.:slapface:

 

[Count Matthewzilla]

I love it when people add things to rulebooks, or any argument for that matter, when no where in their source does it say what they claim. erv:

 

[crafty0ne]

I love it when people add things to rulebooks, or any argument for that matter, when no where in their source does it say what they claim. erv:

I know! Did we all switch to some new comp system and no one let me know? I feel left out here....

 

[Count Matthewzilla]

I love it when people add things to rulebooks, or any argument for that matter, when no where in their source does it say what they claim. erv:

I know! Did we all switch to some new comp system and no one let me know? I feel left out here....

Oh, really? Well, in a comp that only affects you, You can no longer use Fell Bats. They're banned from all your future lists.

There you go enjoy :tongue:

 

[crafty0ne]

Oh, really? Well, in a comp that only affects you, You can no longer use Fell Bats. They're banned from all your future lists.

There you go enjoy :tongue:

Darn, and after I modeled them on 20 inch high bases so they can see the entire battlefield and added space marine radiopacks so they can radio positions back to my entire army....

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm on the same page with Crafty0ne.

This whole discussion is exactly why LOS rules based on the way a model looks or is posed, are terrible. The game is already an abstraction of movement and mass combat, why try to make the LOS riles so literal?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 6th Ed had it right: Every model blocks LOS for every other model, the exception being large targets which can see and be seen over other non-LT models. Simple.

 

[Yorga]

I'm on the same page with Crafty0ne.

This whole discussion is exactly why LOS rules based on the way a model looks or is posed, are terrible. The game is already an abstraction of movement and mass combat, why try to make the LOS riles so literal?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 6th Ed had it right: Every model blocks LOS for every other model, the exception being large targets which can see and be seen over other non-LT models. Simple.

No...you forgot that in 6th edition placement on a hill also let you see over models.

 

[crafty0ne]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 6th Ed had it right: Every model blocks LOS for every other model, the exception being large targets which can see and be seen over other non-LT models. Simple.

I'm almost 100% with ya on that one. Maybe like 90% agree. The problem with the 6th edition LOS rules was it was way to easy to block LOS for warmachines. I would do it all the time with my buddy against his dwarf and empire armies. "Ohhhh, nice shiny cannon you got there....I'll use raise dead to put a zombie unit in front of that.....oh whats that, you forgot to buy grapeshot for that cannon....have fun shooting your super powerful expensive cannons at just zombies for the whole game erv: " So while I'd LOVE to be able to do that still, I don't think that's a good idea rules wise. There needs to be some way around people doing that so that warmachines could sensibly pick out and fire at desired targets.

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm on the same page with Crafty0ne.

This whole discussion is exactly why LOS rules based on the way a model looks or is posed, are terrible. The game is already an abstraction of movement and mass combat, why try to make the LOS riles so literal?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 6th Ed had it right: Every model blocks LOS for every other model, the exception being large targets which can see and be seen over other non-LT models. Simple.

No...you forgot that in 6th edition placement on a hill also let you see over models.

Hills are a given. I was just referring to how models block LOS. But now that you mention it– The way hills blocked LOS was just 'hills block LOS to models on the opposite side.' Completely irrespective to the physical height of the hill. So, again, we had an abstraction that assumed hills were high enough to allow for tall models to move concealed behind the cover of a hill without having to model hills that were 6" high. As opposed to these days where even infantry can't hide unless the hill is at least 2" tall, and cavalry need about 3" of pink foam stacked up to be concealed.

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm almost 100% with ya on that one. Maybe like 90% agree. The problem with the 6th edition LOS rules was it was way to easy to block LOS for warmachines. I would do it all the time with my buddy against his dwarf and empire armies. "Ohhhh, nice shiny cannon you got there....I'll use raise dead to put a zombie unit in front of that.....oh whats that, you forgot to buy grapeshot for that cannon....have fun shooting your super powerful expensive cannons at just zombies for the whole game erv: " So while I'd LOVE to be able to do that still, I don't think that's a good idea rules wise. There needs to be some way around people doing that so that warmachines could sensibly pick out and fire at desired targets.

That shouldn't have stopped him. In order to fire a cannon, you needed enemy within LOS, and then you pick your range. So he could draw LOS to the Zombies, and then guess 23 inches, overshooting and hitting what he wanted.

But that's easily rectified by allowing war machines that don't use BS To Hit to target anything without needing LOS. If they have LOS it works as normal. If there's no LOS, the Stone thrower's scatter is doubled, or the cannonball's point of impact scatters D6.

 

[Johnny-Crass]

6th edition LOS was garbage. Goblins and snotlings shielding black orcs? Yeah that makes sense. No TLOS is the better system and if people would use an ounce of logic they would understand that 'modeling for advantage' is a lot harder than it seems.

 

[Count Matthewzilla]

Logic? Since when do people resort to logic for anything. I thought it was RAW is king. Logic has no place here Vulcan.

Now to model all my monsters on top of buildings...and my cannons too while I'm at it.