Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Moving rules discussion over from the “(Q) Acceptability of use of square bases for WH40K miniatures” thread over in the Tournament forum.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/336243.page

Also, if anyone else wants to weigh in, you really should read the other recent thread on this in YMDC, or at least the last couple of pages.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Man - sorry, I thought I'd covered your argument in the other thread.

My argument is that the rules say it is "usually" supplied with a base - well, when you ha ve 20 bases for 10 models you have got "a" base for every model - which ever one you put next to it. So the rules still cover this situation, and placing the model on a square base IS within the rules to do.

How many times did I say it's within the rules in that last thread? I didn't keep count. At least six, maybe?

What I ALSO pointed out is that you still have to make an inference. You are making an assumption to fill in a gap. 20 bases for 10 models requires the player to make a leap of logic. Now, as i also pointed out and exhaustively documented in the last thread, the overwhelming weight of pictorial and contextual evidence is that GW expects you to use the round bases if you're using daemons for 40k. There's literally only one daemon pictured on a square base in the rulebook, out of 140+ models shown in the big version. And it's a flesh hound, which I don't believe were packaged with round bases at the time the rulebook was released. All the greater daemons and blood crushers shown, for example, are on round bases.

I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that GW doesn't mean for you to use the squares in 40k. They've written the rule in such a way that it allows older models on those bases to still be legal for use, but basing new models on them really isn't what they intend, and it's not the optimal solution for cross-functional use in both major games, although that's the conclusion a lot of people leap to, because it's easier, and they haven't thought through the drawbacks, or they've minimized them to justify to themselves taking the easy route with the square bases.

raise it again? :/

you're right - but unflexible gamers would have a fit.

question. circular bases are slightly smaller then box ones, yes? couldn't you just put them on circular bases? they'd still fit into the regiment mover things...

I was pointing out that you dont need to infer it is within the rules at all.

Yes, you can argue intent all day long is to use round bases in 40k. However, despite having 3 editions in which to actually state it (not counitng 1st and 2nd, as that was a complete mix) they still have not done so. In fact they have lkept the basing rules as simple as possible - use the base it comes with. Given the fact daemons was released prior to 5th, and regiment boxes were supplied with both they could easily have written a caveat to the basing rule to cater for this - but they didnt.

The advantages of square bases is, for daemons, neatly balanced by the disadvantages - so you end up with a personal preference.

Solon - while you can use standard Fantasy movement trays with non-square bases, when you come to actually move them you find models "tip" much more easily as they are not locked in place along a flat front, but resting against a point (in essence), and you can end up with the regiment being knocked over. This significantly slows play in fantasy, and anything which slows fantasy down REALLY should be avoided! All of the circular -> regiment movement trays I've seen have the problem that the gaps between models arent zero width, whcih then increases frontage for the regiment AND makes the regiment take up more space on the board. In a game with strict rules for models in combat based on frontage, and in a game where movement is king this can soon add up to another problem.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about wobbly bases.

surely if you took some time, you could put prestick on the bases? that wouldn't work with 100+ models, but it'd mean you could stay reasonable and still move normally on 40k.

Well the best option is magnetising the bases and having a simple foil underlay to the movement tray, that way they never fall off - best example I saw the guy even transported them that way, in a metal "lunch box" tin where you could stick the regiments to the walls of the carry case.

But this all takes time and extra expense, and not every hobbyist has the time. Especially when there is the simpler, within the rules for both systems approach of simply using square bases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was pointing out that you dont need to infer it is within the rules at all.

I disagree entirely. 20 bases + 10 models = you need to make a choice. The rulebook doesn't say make a choice. It doesn't say anything at all about models coming with multiple bases. There is no way to escape making a deduction or inference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you can argue intent all day long is to use round bases in 40k. However, despite having 3 editions in which to actually state it (not counitng 1st and 2nd, as that was a complete mix) they still have not done so. In fact they have kept the basing rules as simple as possible - use the base it comes with.

I maintain that you're drawing an inaccurate conclusion based in part on erroneous data. I broke out my 3rd ed book; did you? The third edition book literally says nothing about bases except that you should flock them, in the painting section. No instruction or requirement to put your models on them at all; they just assumed the players would figure it out. So you're better off lumping it in with 1st and 2nd. They haven't kept the basing rules the same, because there have only recently been any. Over the first 17 years of the game there were no basing rules at all. They made some in 4th, then changed them in 5th. They've only recently noticed that bases even matter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given the fact daemons was released prior to 5th, and regiment boxes were supplied with both they could easily have written a caveat to the basing rule to cater for this - but they didnt.

Sure. Although your implicit argument here hinges on GW's editorial competence and attention to detail. In support of my thesis, note that all the new boxes came with both kinds of bases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The advantages of square bases is, for daemons, neatly balanced by the disadvantages - so you end up with a personal preference.

I'm sorry, can you name any disadvantages? The one I thought they had (greater vulnerability to blasts) turned out to be false; Polonius pointed out the flaw in my math in the Tournaments forum thread. Advantages:

1. Smaller DS formations, for reduced risk of Mishap.
2. Wider dispersal, for reduced number of blast marker/template hits.
3. 25mm & 40mm bases are ~40% wider at the widest, increasing distance covered for assaults, shooting, and holding objectives.

Bloodcrushers and Greater Daemons get increased impact from #1, because the 50mm square is actually smaller than the 60mm round at its narrowest, but still get #2 & #3 because they're ~70mm at their widest. If the Daemon player KNOWs they're getting an advantage, they can compensate by actively working NOT to get it, but this, IME, is a PITA. In addition, if they think they're not getting an advantage, or operating under the illusion that the advantages are fully offset with disadvantages, then they likely go ahead and do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Solon - while you can use standard Fantasy movement trays with non-square bases, when you come to actually move them you find models "tip" much more easily as they are not locked in place along a flat front, but resting against a point (in essence), and you can end up with the regiment being knocked over. This significantly slows play in fantasy, and anything which slows fantasy down REALLY should be avoided! All of the circular -> regiment movement trays I've seen have the problem that the gaps between models arent zero width, whcih then increases frontage for the regiment AND makes the regiment take up more space on the board. In a game with strict rules for models in combat based on frontage, and in a game where movement is king this can soon add up to another problem.

From long and extensive experience with WH, this paragraph has a few issues. They're not a lot easier to knock over; that's more a function of how top-heavy the models are. And as you've noted, magnetizing the bases is increasingly common. Most of the tournament players I know routinely do it, at this point; because it's so quick, easy, and cheap. Certainly a lot faster than glueing together the models. It doesn't slow down play. The part you're right about is that the GF9 trays have gaps between the slots, which is a bummer (though it eliminates the tipping issue entirely), and you don't want to use a tray that adds significantly to the width/length of the unit. But using a regular tray eliminates that issue. The models in combat based on frontage issue isn't ever an issue. If it's ever unclear the players just do the math. WH requires you to maximize models in contact, so you can always determine how many are actually in contact by simple addition.

Mannahnin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was pointing out that you dont need to infer it is within the rules at all.

I disagree entirely. 20 bases + 10 models = you need to make a choice. The rulebook doesn't say make a choice. It doesn't say anything at all about models coming with multiple bases. There is no way to escape making a deduction or inference.

I'd think that this is just another wonderful example of how the 40k rules don't hold up to the "rigorous" analysis we try to perform upon them.

Eh. I think they do fine, honestly. We can pick at the little points all day long online if it floats our boats, though they work quite well overall at the table.

So in 3rd they didnt care what bases you put things on, in 4th only that they were "supplied or bigger" (to paraphrase) and in 5th it is simply "supplied"

Seems like they have had, as you point out, 17 years to simply state: use the round bases supplied for 40k.

Supports that their intent is: put it on the base supplied.

As for square being smaller formations - it depends on your unit size. A smaller unit on round is smaller than a small unit on square.

Slowing down play: models being knocked down does slow down play. Round bases on movement trays increases the chances of them being knocked over, as they have more directions they can tip in. So if you dont magnetise them you are increasing the chances of them falling over, compared to non-magnetised square bases.

Edit: you also dont address that small amounts between bases adds up to significant amounts of space on a 250mm frontage. Given how crowded deployment zones can get this can be an absolute PITA for a letter and horror horde army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So in 3rd they didnt care what bases you put things on, in 4th only that they were "supplied or bigger" (to paraphrase) and in 5th it is simply "supplied"

Seems like they have had, as you point out, 17 years to simply state: use the round bases supplied for 40k.

17 years until 4th was released, Nos. 23 years as of 2010.

I'm afraid your premise is wrong again. They've only actually been able to say that for as long as every model used in 40k has been supplied with a round base. How long has it been since the biker bases came out? They're more recent than the 5th ed rulebook, aren't they? Yes, they could have written "If both are supplied, use the round one", but GW overlooks little things like this all the time. Heck, again, my point was that for 17 years they assumed they didn't need to say anything about it at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As for square being smaller formations - it depends on your unit size. A smaller unit on round is smaller than a small unit on square.

If you deliberately go to the trouble of placing your square bases in approximately the same positions they would have were they round, that's more or less true. If you do the intuitive thing and maximize contact by using the corners, 8 squares surround 1, as opposed to 6 circles surrounding 1. As I pointed out in the previous thread, and showed with math, using a nine square box formation instead of a seven circle allows the daemon player to put down a larger unit with less clearance in any given direction. Again, if the daemon player doesn't consciously think about it and deliberately refrain from taking advantage, he gains an advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Slowing down play: models being knocked down does slow down play. Round bases on movement trays increases the chances of them being knocked over, as they have more directions they can tip in. So if you dont magnetise them you are increasing the chances of them falling over, compared to non-magnetised square bases. Edit: you also dont address that small amounts between bases adds up to significant amounts of space on a 250mm frontage. Given how crowded deployment zones can get this can be an absolute PITA for a letter and horror horde army.

250mm frontage? Not a lot of folks field Hordes of daemons. That being said, sure, models being knocked over slows down play, but IME models falling over is much more a function of weight and height, less of base shape (though certainly it plays a part). The virtue of the GF9 ones is that by completely surrounding the base they eliminate the tipping issue. The flaw is that they add spacing. The optimal solution is to use a regular movement tray & magnets, thus avoiding both issues, for a really trivial expenditure in cost and labor. You can get hundreds of rare earth magnets for a few dollars, and they take a lot less time to install than flocking and painting the bases does.

I wanted to find a way round this, and to an extent did, I used round bases for Bloodletters and placed them on LotR movement trays (for round bases). I have Skarbrand who is too many points to use in Fantasy so is on a Round base. And the Skulltaker on a Chariot, who is on a Screaming Bell base as it is the only one he will fit on and seems reasonable to me. Flesh Hounds only came with the square base. However I am still not sure how to do my Bloodcrushers. Probably interchangable.

3rd was released in 1998, surely?

I could be misremembering that date, but sure it was then because it meant DE (3rd ed release book) were the oldest at 11 years old.

They could STILL have said "if round bases are supplied, use round bases" at any point during the last 23 years, and chose not to. In fact they dont seem to have said, at any point, in any publication anywhere that round is the way to go. it is just an assumption on your part. A well founded one, but still as much of an assumption as the one you make about them caring at all about the shape of the base.

As for hordes of daemons? I see them all the time. 10 wide blood letters work horrendously well.

phantommaster wrote:I wanted to find a way round this, and to an extent did, I used round bases for Bloodletters and placed them on LotR movement trays (for round bases). I have Skarbrand who is too many points to use in Fantasy so is on a Round base. And the Skulltaker on a Chariot, who is on a Screaming Bell base as it is the only one he will fit on and seems reasonable to me. Flesh Hounds only came with the square base. However I am still not sure how to do my Bloodcrushers. Probably interchangable.

Good thinking! I agree, interchangeable is probably the only real way to go with 'crushers. A lot of people are not real fans of them in WH, though, finding that the Flesh Hounds are much better for the points & role in that game. So it might even be worth just making them 40k models like Skarbrand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:3rd was released in 1998, surely?

I could be misremembering that date, but sure it was then because it meant DE (3rd ed release book) were the oldest at 11 years old.

Am I expressing myself unclearly, somehow? I already told you that 3rd has no basing rules. 1987-2004 (release of 4th) is 17 years.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They could STILL have said "if round bases are supplied, use round bases" at any point during the last 23 years, and chose not to.

And I already anticipated and addressed this argument in my last two posts, didn't I? Or did I hallucinate that? Given GW's track record, it's kind of funny to conclude that they "chose" not to, especially when you consider that for the first 17 years they didn't bother to say anything at all. They made a rule in 4th, and changed it and made it more restrictive in 5th. And they didn't have round bases for all the models usable in 40k until AFTER the publication of the 5th ed rulebook. This actually might explain why there are so many photos of bikes with no bases at all in the 5th ed rulebook; they didn't want to show too many square bases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In fact they dont seem to have said, at any point, in any publication anywhere that round is the way to go. it is just an assumption on your part. A well founded one, but still as much of an assumption as the one you make about them caring at all about the shape of the base.

Either reading of the basing rules requires making an assumption, an inference, or a deduction. Whether you conclude that square bases are legal or that they should not be used.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As for hordes of daemons? I see them all the time. 10 wide blood letters work horrendously well.

Fair enough.

Crushers are an "almost" unit in fantasy - one point better AS is about all they needed and they would have been a more viable unit. As it is hounds are cheaper and output about as much damage - however the old trick of putting a khorne jugger herald in there doesnt work as well, as he no longer gets a LOS! due to different classification.

Mann - they chose not to, they just didnt make a conscious choice to do it. Also the first two lines were simply questioning release dates - i thought 3rd was 1998. It doesnt alter that, since 4th, they HAVE been thinking about basing - and STILL made no mention of "where round bases are supplied, these must be used" - the release dates of biker bases is not relevant, as this caveat could still have been used. It will be interesting to see if they add this as a requirement to 6th, or again simply ignore it.

Could someone point to me the issue with the RAW which says any base that the mini comes with can be used for that mini. Deamons come with both bases.

The RAW rule for fantasy is ONLY square.


"I'll hang up while you answer"

MisterMoon wrote:Could someone point to me the issue with the RAW which says any base that the mini comes with can be used for that mini. Deamons come with both bases.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/334338.page#2260854

MisterMoon wrote:The RAW rule for fantasy is ONLY square.

No, it isn't. The fantasy rules don't say anything directly about bases at all. The "Forming Units" rules on page 5 imply square bases, but they don't actually specify the shape, or say anything about what size to use. GW just assumes you'll figure it out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mann - they chose not to, they just didnt make a conscious choice to do it.

This argument is beneath you. You are well aware that the standard common usage of "choice" includes conscious volition. There is a significant difference between consciously choosing not to do something (which is what you implied before), and failing to do it out of inattention or carelessness. Do you agree or disagree that GW has an established track record of editorial errors and oversights? In my opinion the 17 years of GW's inattention (in the rules of 40k) to bases is indicative that on the whole, the studio guys don't think about it much. Even if the choice was a conscious one, neither of us can know exactly what the reasoning behind it was. Which leads back to my point, that it's not provable and obvious whether the square bases are supposed be allowed for use in 40k, as you have repeatedly asserted.

You still haven't answered my question about any disadvantages of using the square bases in 40k. You asserted earlier that the advantages and disadvantages counterbalance, and I disagreed, listing three mathematically-demonstrable advantages, and asking you to list some disadvantages. I'm still waiting for a response on that one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also the first two lines were simply questioning release dates - i thought 3rd was 1998.

Okay, sure; I just didn't see the relevance, since 3rd still had no basing rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt alter that, since 4th, they HAVE been thinking about basing - and STILL made no mention of "where round bases are supplied, these must be used" - the release dates of biker bases is not relevant, as this caveat could still have been used.

Sure, they could have written the rule to be more clear and add that. But how many rules could we trade back and forth in which GW could have phrased them better, more clearly, and more comprehensively? You and I are both aware of numerous rules in which they used sloppy phrasing and left stuff open. I expect we each could literally come up with a half dozen or more, with better, clearer phrasing of our own, in the space of ten minutes. I don't think you can draw a strong conclusion either way with regards to their failure here. It could theoretically be a conscious choice, but IMO based on their track record and current practices (heck, as I noted above, the 8th ed WH rulebook doesn't say anything about bases!), it's much more likely to be an oversight.

Yet that is just an opinion - you are now assuming their intent is round-only.

I was actually making a joke by that point (unconcious choice), which yo useem to have missed - it was probably limitations of text again, for which I apologise. GW miss things all the time, as we're both well aware. Trouble is that lack / inabaility, to me as an auditor, isnt persuasive evidence of either case - it is just evidence of (likely) incompetence in their secondary business**

I also gave an example, twice, that you ignored: small units will take up a reduced space. And, to be honest, even if they arent balanced out it doesnt matter from an objective rules perspective, as basing with round or square is entirely acceptable.

To put it bluntly: I am not convinced, in other words I am not persuaded by available evidence*, that GW gives 2 hoots about the shape of the base, just that you base it with the one supplied.

Handily the latter is supported within the rules (and works, unlike some rules....), so I'm satisfied to leave it there. Eventually they may remember to think about what theyre writing and see if it matches with what they THINK they are writing, and we may see a change; until then all is good.

Anyways, after 2 days of entirely dull training (ISAs, yay - although the US may get them at some point, you lucky people!) I think I'm ready to "agree to disagree" on this, if you are?

*not talking evidentiary standards here, of course, just what is normally shortened to "persuasive" evidence, which is a whole class beneath it.

**I seem to remember they keep stating that rules are secondary, models are frist - they just write interesting games to sell models, not the other way round. I could be wrong on this, and it was probably Jervis saying it in any case....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet that is just an opinion - you are now assuming their intent is round-only.

Nope. I'm making an inference based on the evidence available to me, not an assumption. You are now ALSO making an inference, basically because I (and your own love for debate and intellectual curiosity) forced you to ( ), whereas before I believe you were making an assumption. I think a lot of people assume that the square bases are okay and intended to be allowed in both games, not taking the time to think it through. I'm trying to fight that, because I've made the same mistake myself and I'd rather people make a better/more functional modeling choice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was actually making a joke by that point (unconcious choice), which yo useem to have missed - it was probably limitations of text again, for which I apologise.

If it was an attempted joke, I apologize too for missing it. Thanks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW miss things all the time, as we're both well aware. Trouble is that lack / inabaility, to me as an auditor, isnt persuasive evidence of either case - it is just evidence of (likely) incompetence in their secondary business**

Sure. We're on the same page here again. My point, though, is that I'm not trying to prove one side conclusively. I'm just trying to disprove your repeated assertion, and many people's erroneous assumption, that the square bases are 100% allowed and intended for use in 40k and that anyone who says otherwise is a bad person, the moral equivalent of someone banning your whole army because they felt like it.

My argument and overall position is:
A) That the basing rules and their intent are NOT as clear as people make them out to be.
B) There are multiple advantages which can be derived from square bases in 40k which could reasonably be seen as "modeling for advantage".
C) There are better alternative approaches if you want cross-functional models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I also gave an example, twice, that you ignored: small units will take up a reduced space.

I didn't ignore it; I argued the point, and you didn't continue. Let me quote the exchange from earlier in this thread:

Mannahnin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As for square being smaller formations - it depends on your unit size. A smaller unit on round is smaller than a small unit on square.

If you deliberately go to the trouble of placing your square bases in approximately the same positions they would have were they round, that's more or less true. If you do the intuitive thing and maximize contact by using the corners, 8 squares surround 1, as opposed to 6 circles surrounding 1. As I pointed out in the previous thread, and showed with math, using a nine square box formation instead of a seven circle allows the daemon player to put down a larger unit with less clearance in any given direction. Again, if the daemon player doesn't consciously think about it and deliberately refrain from taking advantage, he gains an advantage.

And let me also link to my post from the previous thread where I broke it down before:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/334338.page#2260854

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, to be honest, even if they arent balanced out it doesnt matter from an objective rules perspective, as basing with round or square is entirely acceptable.

Not at all! This is actually a significant factor, because it turns what may well have been an innocent choice into something that is functionally "modeling for advantage". Your opponents have no way to KNOW whether you did it to gain an advantage, or did it out of ignorance.

Many of them may be inattentive enough or sufficiently unacquainted with the geometry to not to notice the wider coherency dispersal, or the reduced DS footprint. If they're UNaware, you may still be gaining an unfair advantage over them. And even if they DO notice, they're in the uncomfortable and tiresome position of having to ask you to place and rotate your models differently, unless you're really conscientious about it. And I think that the more times people are falsely reassured "oh, it makes no difference" or "the advantages are counterbalanced by the disadvantages", the less motivation they have to be conscientious about it; to be careful and not cheat their opponents. The more times we tell daemons player "X" that it doesn't matter which bases he uses, the more likely he is to go ahead and DS them in the best formation for him, and to rotate those squares to give him the best dispersal.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Anyways, after 2 days of entirely dull training (ISAs, yay - although the US may get them at some point, you lucky people!) I think I'm ready to "agree to disagree" on this, if you are?

Yay for dull training. I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm sorry to say I can't really reciprocate. As I indicate above, I'm really trying to increase awareness of this issue a bit and change some hearts and minds. I'm arguing the whole concept because I'm not really happy with the status quo, where people do the square basing thing because they think there are no issues.

omho I think you should just use the circular 40k base as thats what gw wants you to use or they wouldnt put it in th box. There is no real advantage or square, it just makes your models look out of place. If you can only win by using different bases then you obv suck at 40k

I'd look for an answer in the next edition or even an FaQ possibly. IIRC the WHFB 8th ed rules DO state that the square base mush be used.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I'd look for an answer in the next edition or even an FaQ possibly. IIRC the WHFB 8th ed rules DO state that the square base mush be used.

I honestly doubt that. GW seems to really rely on the "40k should be a fun game with relaxed rules." I don't think the minor differences between square and round bases bothers them at all.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I'd look for an answer in the next edition or even an FaQ possibly.

Fingers crossed, though it seems unlikely.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:IIRC the WHFB 8th ed rules DO state that the square base mush be used.

Man, come on. When I state specifically that they actually don't, and I cite the specific section where they come close, you might want to look it up before posting to the contrary.

If it is okay to use square bases for demons, because they 'came with them'. What about larger box purchases.

I bought a Nid Battleforce, it has three different size bases. So is it okay for me to put my Gaunt on a 60mm base? How about putting that Fex on the 25mm base?

They 'came' with all of those bases....

As long as you only put them in the correct ratio - this argument was used before with tgaunts, from memory, as one base is 40mm - for ripper swarms, unless im going completely bonkers - so there is nothing wrong with putting them on that base, as long as only one model is on the larger base, the rest from that box on the smaller base.

Mann - but if it IS within the rules, and there is nothing yet that *states* otherwise, then how can it be modelling for advantage?

nosferatu1001 wrote:As long as you only put them in the correct ratio - this argument was used before with tgaunts, from memory, as one base is 40mm - for ripper swarms, unless im going completely bonkers - so there is nothing wrong with putting them on that base, as long as only one model is on the larger base, the rest from that box on the smaller base.

And again, I disagree that there is "nothing wrong" with putting a termagant on a ripper swarm's base. Just as with daemons, a box of tyranids like this comes with multiple different bases, which require the purchaser to make an inference/use deductive reasoning to figure out their proper usage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mann - but if it IS within the rules, and there is nothing yet that *states* otherwise, then how can it be modelling for advantage?

That's the point, Nos. Modeling For Advantage is technically within the rules*, but abuses those game rules (which are written so as to support creativity) to gain an advantage GW never intended. The line different players and TOs draw about how much (if any) Modeling For Advantage they will accept is a varied one. But scrupulous players strive not to do it.


(*Though forbidden in the INAT FAQ)

How is MfA within the rules? the rules only allow you to use Citadel Miniatures, and conversions arent by definition C.M. any longer.

What "definition" are you talking about?

The rules only refer to Citadel Miniatures, but they don't restrict you to only using them; the language on page 3 is descriptive, not exclusive. Page 225 gives explicit sanction to converting your Citadel miniatures, although even without that, the larger context of the hobby, the codices, the articles on the website and every month in WD, obviously converted models are a routine and accepted part of the game.

I'm not debating here as a fun game of forensic debate, trying to score points or "win". I'm trying to address an occasional problem which impinges on enjoyment of the game, which springs from and hinges on what I see as a poor understanding of the meaning and intent of the basing rules.