Peregrine wrote:


The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit.

I have not found anything regarding this in my rulebook. They even have a kitbash and conversion topic on the big rulebook.

Only thing I have found regarding this preventing to use models that are intentionally modeled to gain advantage.

So what must I do with my warrior acolytes. They have plenty of weapon choices and no real model available so please let me know where to get standard Citadel kit with assembly instructio s for my acolytes.

Also I must dispose my inquisitors as they have greenstuffed Inquisition marks amd also my reaver windrider hybrids.

Is this kind of attitude even possible

They do not explain what Citadel miniatures means in the book.

Can a model be 100% citadel parts and considered a Citadel miniature?

It has to be if you want anything other than a Force Staff on a terminator SM Librarian as the kit only comes with a Staff. So the options in the Codex tell you what is on the model, but we are not told how to represent it.

But how does this work for things like the Mycetic Spore? There is no Citadel miniature for that unit, so are we even alloed to use Mycetic Spores in our games?

Well the rules just do not cover it, and we have to figure out player conventions to make it work reasonably, ethically, and in a sporting manner.

40k BRB wrote:
The Citadel miniatures used to play the game of Warhammer 40,000...

FinnSeer wrote:
Is this kind of attitude even possible

You're kind of missing the point.

RAW you can't use anything other than the appropriate Citadel kit. So yes, you would not be allowed to use things like mycetic spores or warrior acolytes with the weapons you want.

However, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that "reasonable" conversions/proxies/etc are allowed. The point is not that a bunch of units are banned because they don't have official models, it's that conversions are outside the scope of the game and therefore claiming that your dreadnought with 24" guns (to gain extra range) is "legal" is just stupid. It isn't legal RAW, and nobody is obligated to give you that special permission and accept MFA if they don't want to.

 Peregrine wrote:

RAW you can't use anything other than the appropriate Citadel kit.

It only says 'Citadel miniatures'. An Empire flagellant converted to carry a bolter to represent an Inquisitorial Acolyte is still a Citadel miniature.

 Crimson wrote:
It only says 'Citadel miniatures'. An Empire flagellant converted to carry a bolter to represent an Inquisitorial Acolyte is still a Citadel miniature.

But it's still a Citadel Empire Flagellant. You are never given permission to convert it into an Inquisitorial Acolyte. This is no different than trying to use a Valkyrie to represent a guardsman with a lasgun.

 Peregrine wrote:

But it's still a Citadel Empire Flagellant. You are never given permission to convert it into an Inquisitorial Acolyte.

Yes you have, there's an entire section for that in the BRB.

Is that in the rules section? I didn't think so.

Thing is, there is nothing in the rules about what model you're supposed to represent what. No, not even that you have to use a space marine model instead of a grot to represent an Ultramarine. All that is equally just a convention.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

RAW you can't use anything other than the appropriate Citadel kit.

It only says 'Citadel miniatures'. An Empire flagellant converted to carry a bolter to represent an Inquisitorial Acolyte is still a Citadel miniature.

What if its a Marauder miniature? http://www.solegends.com/marauder/mm65flagellants.htm

Technically Peregrine is correct, the very first sentence of the 'rules' section of the 40k Rulebook starts with: "the Citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer 40k......". On the other hand there is a section in the hardback book specifically about conversions and exactly what a Citadel miniature is is never explained fully (or if it is I can't be bothered to look).

I am sure that GW rules have been starting with that exact same sentence for years and it has been roundly ignored so I don't see why it should have any particular relevance now.

 Palindrome wrote:
I am sure that GW rules have been starting with that exact same sentence for years and it has been roundly ignored so I don't see why it should have any particular relevance now.

It doesn't really have any relevance because virtually everyone plays with a house rule that modifies (or even ignores) it. The reason I brought it up in the other thread is to point out that conversions are outside the rules, so insisting that your MFA is "legal" and therefore everyone has to accept it is just stupid.

This topic makes no sense. Unless someone can produce a page number with a rule that specifically says only citadel models can be used to play a game of warhammer 40k then it is a non issue

kranki wrote:
This topic makes no sense. Unless someone can produce a page number with a rule that specifically says only citadel models can be used to play a game of warhammer 40k then it is a non issue

Again, this is backwards. You aren't allowed to do anything in 40k unless the rules specifically give you permission to do it. The rules give you permission to use appropriate Citadel models. They do not give you permission to use anything else.

Pg number and rule please....

A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

kranki wrote:
Pg number and rule please....

Yes, please provide one giving permission to use anything other than appropriate Citadel models.

 Peregrine wrote:

kranki wrote:
This topic makes no sense. Unless someone can produce a page number with a rule that specifically says only citadel models can be used to play a game of warhammer 40k then it is a non issue

Again, this is backwards. You aren't allowed to do anything in 40k unless the rules specifically give you permission to do it. The rules give you permission to use appropriate Citadel models. They do not give you permission to use anything else.

You keep adding "appropriate"; you keep adding to the rule that simply doesn't exist.

Citadel miniatures are models. which citadel miniature you use does not matter. so long as you base your miniature off of citadel parts you have a citadel miniature(even if it is a converted citadel miniature, because "converted" is an adjective to the base "citadel miniature").

 Melissia wrote:
A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

It's not really illogical when you consider that virtually everyone has a house rule that modifies it. The end result in practical terms is that because the rules never approve any conversion/proxy models you can't claim that MFA is legal and insist that your opponent has to accept it. The original context of this debate was an argument about a hypothetical dreadnought with 24" long guns, a model which will never be allowed in a real game.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's not really illogical

Your reasons for it not being complete and utter nonsense do not actually prove that it is complete and utter nonsense, in fact, all it does is prove that this interpretation is complete and utter nonsense.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Citadel miniatures are models. which citadel miniature you use does not matter.

Of course it matters. Each Citadel miniature has a label telling you what it can be used for. If you buy a Rhino for your C:SM army you are required to use the Citadel Space Marine Rhino kit (assembled according to the instructions) to represent it. There's only "ambiguity" in this situation if you ignore the instructions GW has provided and assume that only one particular sentence counts.

The alternative argument of "Citadel is Citadel" allows you to use a single guardsman as a Land Raider because hey, it's still a Citadel model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Citadel miniatures are models. which citadel miniature you use does not matter.

Of course it matters. Each Citadel miniature has a label telling you what it can be used for. If you buy a Rhino for your C:SM army you are required to use the Citadel Space Marine Rhino kit (assembled according to the instructions) to represent it. There's only "ambiguity" in this situation if you ignore the instructions GW has provided and assume that only one particular sentence counts.

The alternative argument of "Citadel is Citadel" allows you to use a single guardsman as a Land Raider because hey, it's still a Citadel model.

Show me the rule.

 Melissia wrote:
Your reasons for it not being complete and utter nonsense do not actually prove that it is complete and utter nonsense, in fact, all it does is prove that this interpretation is complete and utter nonsense.

It's only "nonsense" if you want conversions/counts-as/proxies to be supported by the rules. If you're content to leave them as something outside the rules that the individual players in a game agree on then it's not illogical at all. And it has the nice side benefit of telling TFG to STFU and go away when they try to bring a dreadnought with 24" guns because "GW never says I can't".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Citadel miniatures are models. which citadel miniature you use does not matter.

Of course it matters. Each Citadel miniature has a label telling you what it can be used for.

This label isn't mentioned in the rulebook and therefor, according to your bizarre and out of context interpretation to the rules, you cannot use it to determine what the model is to be used for.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Show me the rule.

The rule is in the product title. GW assumes that you're intelligent enough to figure out that "use Citadel models" means "use the Citadel model with that unit name", not "use any Citadel model you want, regardless of how appropriate it is". It's kind of like how the movement rules never explicitly state that you pick up the model and move it to its new location, since everyone capable of reading and understanding the rulebook knows that's what you're supposed to do.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's only "nonsense" if you want conversions/counts-as/proxies to be supported by the rules

You're working your mind in twists and leaps. Try not to get it in a knot.

 Melissia wrote:
This label isn't mentioned in the rulebook and therefor, according to your bizarre and out of context interpretation to the rules, you cannot use it to determine what the model is to be used for.

You're assuming that only rules provided in the rulebook count. GW disagrees, as demonstrated by their use of online FAQs/errata, codex supplements, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW assumes that you're intelligent

See: One-Click Deals.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're assuming that only rules provided in the rulebook count.

That's because I'm using your so-called "logic".

The exact same logic you are using in this thread comes to the conclusion that you just quoted and said was wrong.

 Melissia wrote:
That's because I'm using your so-called "logic".

No you aren't. Nothing in my argument goes from "you can only use the models GW gives you permission to use" to "only the rules published in this one specific source count, regardless of how GW decides to publish rules".

Oh, So you are making them up.

An Empire Handgunner with converted 40K weaponry to be used as an acolyte is 100% a citadel model; and there is no Marketed miniature for such a model.

So when we have Units with no miniatures; GW must be assuming we are all smart enough to proxy that model right?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So when we have Units with no miniatures; GW must be assuming we are all smart enough to proxy that model right?

Nope, that just means you can't use that unit by strict RAW. Fortunately GW has stopped making units that don't have models when the codex is released, and hopefully they'll eventually get around to making those missing models.

Fortunately we as players have provided house rules (with near unanimous agreement) that those models are acceptable because they are a reasonable conversion. But that doesn't mean that a dreadnought converted to have 24" guns must also be accepted.

 Peregrine wrote:
No you aren't. Nothing in my argument goes from "you can only use the models GW gives you permission to use" to "only the rules published in this one specific source count, regardless of how GW decides to publish rules".

You're stating that the modeling section of the BRB doesn't count, only the rules section counts. Ergo... why should other things that are not in the rules section count, either?

The only thing I can think of is you distinguish between the two using a silly, arbitrary method, which you've designed specifically and solely so you can attack a certain kind of player, rather than actually logically following from the rules as written.

Which, by the way, you yourself admitted is in fact the case.

 Melissia wrote:
You're stating that the modeling section of the BRB doesn't count, only the rules section counts. Ergo... why should other things that are not in the rules section count, either?

Because there's a difference between rules/instructions and helpful tips. Things like online FAQs or model kit titles tell you how to play the game. Things like the modeling section of one version of the rulebook provide creative tips or ideas for house rules you may wish to consider, kind of like how the rulebook also has tips on making your own special scenarios (which would obviously be house rules that you and your opponent agree to use, not part of the standard game). In support of this "not official rules" status you can consider the fact that the "rules only" versions of the rulebook omit this section entirely, along with other "not rules" content like the fluff section and pictures of painted models.

The only thing I can think of is you distinguish between the two using a silly, arbitrary method, which you've designed specifically and solely so you can attack a certain kind of player, rather than actually logically following from the rules as written.

You may wish to avoid accusing me of arguing in bad faith, since in my experience that tends to result in a forum vacation.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because there's a difference between rules/instructions and helpful tips.

GW's website doesn't offer the former, therefor it only offers the latter.

 Peregrine wrote:
You may wish to avoid accusing me of arguing in bad faith, since in my experience that tends to result in a forum vacation.

I quote:

 Peregrine wrote:
However, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that "reasonable" conversions/proxies/etc are allowed. The point is not that a bunch of units are banned because they don't have official models, it's that conversions are outside the scope of the game and therefore claiming that your dreadnought with 24" guns (to gain extra range) is "legal" is just stupid. It isn't legal RAW, and nobody is obligated to give you that special permission and accept MFA if they don't want to.

I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that this is not the right way to go about trying to interpret the rules; it's showing an inherent bias on your part.

Meh. If pointing out your own statements is offending you, however, I will bow out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So when we have Units with no miniatures; GW must be assuming we are all smart enough to proxy that model right?

Nope, that just means you can't use that unit by strict RAW. Fortunately GW has stopped making units that don't have models when the codex is released, and hopefully they'll eventually get around to making those missing models.

Fortunately we as players have provided house rules (with near unanimous agreement) that those models are acceptable because they are a reasonable conversion. But that doesn't mean that a dreadnought converted to have 24" guns must also be accepted.

No by Strict Raw you can use Citadel Miniatures to represent that unit.

Fortunately we as players have provided house rules (with near unanimous agreement) that those models Be as close to the description as possible to avoid the nonsense of a single guardsman representing a Landraider or mycetic spore because they are unreasonable. That also doesn't mean that a dreadnought converted to have 24" guns would be accepted.

 Melissia wrote:
GW's website doesn't offer the former, therefor it only offers the latter.

The GW website does offer lots of helpful tips, but it also has instructions. For example, it tells you what a Rhino model is. It doesn't say "here's a cool way to represent your Rhino but feel free to use others", it says "this is a Rhino".

Again, the alternative to this is complete absurdity where you can use a grot as a Land Raider because it's a Citadel miniature and you're never required to use the appropriate Citadel miniature.

I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that this is not the right way to go about trying to interpret the rules.

No, that's exactly what you accused me of. I quote:

The only thing I can think of is you distinguish between the two using a silly, arbitrary method, which you've designed specifically and solely so you can attack a certain kind of player, rather than actually logically following from the rules as written.

You're accusing me of inventing this interpretation specifically to attack people rather than sincerely believing that it is the correct interpretation (which I do).

I get what Peregrine is trying to say, The use of GW models implied as the rules are a supplement to the miniatures, though there are no rules that directly enforced this in the book.

The problem is with this logic it would be illegal to play 40k without painted models, since the boxes you buy state they are supplied unassembled and unpainted which would imply correct use of this product requires assembly and painting before use.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its kinda like using tea spoon to eat soup its not wrong its just not what the spoon was intended for.

I am accusing you of inventing this interpretation.

Mainly be cause you are adding restrictive adjectives with a claim that they are RAW or factual and have done so often/loudly enough that the OP had top start this thread quoting you.

Your made-up claims have started this perceived attack on you, and in the end it is your own fault for making such claims.

Wow being cival is hard on some people.

Its obvious that there is no wording in the brb that supports only the use of citadel miniatures, there is no argument there. There is also no denying that the rules are made to accompany the product GW make.

so why is the thread still open.

kranki wrote:
Its obvious that there is no wording in the brb that supports only the use of citadel miniatures, there is no argument there.

Only citadel miniature are considered Models per the BRB; I am Not arguing that.

What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

That, and the outright refusal to accept that any Citadel Miniature is a model by RAW

At no point does the brb say only citadel miniatures are considered models.

The words use are:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

kranki wrote:
This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

No, but no other object is referred to as a model, so anything that isn't a Citadel miniature is just random clutter on the table with no game relevance.

Citation is probably the wrong word maybe refferant is more apt.

Permissive ruleset; the rules only allow citadel Miniatures(that is the first section of the sentence"The Citadel miniatures used").

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

No, the word "appropriate" is not RAW, but it is the best way to express the concept that GW tells you very clearly what Citadel miniatures represent each model/unit in the rules.

kranki wrote:
At no point does the brb say only citadel miniatures are considered models.

The words use are:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

Actually - no. Since that defines "models" then to have it mean anything else you'd need a second definition.
So... Do you have another definition?

That isn't true although the phrase citadel miniatures is being refered to as "models" it does not give it exclusivity to the word. This is only implied by the author.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Your reasons for it not being complete and utter nonsense do not actually prove that it is complete and utter nonsense, in fact, all it does is prove that this interpretation is complete and utter nonsense.

It's only "nonsense" if you want conversions/counts-as/proxies to be supported by the rules. If you're content to leave them as something outside the rules that the individual players in a game agree on then it's not illogical at all. And it has the nice side benefit of telling TFG to STFU and go away when they try to bring a dreadnought with 24" guns because "GW never says I can't".

So does this mean that if GW does not have a model for a unit that is in the rulebook then you are not allowed to use it as per the rules?

kranki wrote:
That isn't true although the phrase citadel miniatures is being refered to as "models" it does not give it exclusivity to the word. This is only implied by the author.

No, it doesn't by itself grant exclusivity. GW could define other objects as models in the future. But until they do the only objects that are defined as models are Citadel miniatures.

 carlos13th wrote:
So does this mean that if GW does not have a model for a unit that is in the rulebook then you are not allowed to use it as per the rules?

RAW that's exactly what it means.

Fortunately virtually everyone agrees that you can use a reasonable conversion to represent that unit. But this is a house rule, and what counts as "reasonable" depends on the players involved. No conversion is ever approved by the rules.

You realise how ridiculous that is right? A rule book that says here are some units its impossible to play as per the rules.

 carlos13th wrote:
You realise how ridiculous that is right? A rule book that says here are some units its impossible to play as per the rules.

You're right, it is kind of bad. Fortunately GW has stopped releasing units that don't have models, so this problem only applies to a few older armies.

Plus, like I said, virtually everyone has agreed on a house rule that fixes the problem, so it's really not worth worrying about as long as you aren't trying to MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

No, the word "appropriate" is not RAW, but it is the best way to express the concept that GW tells you very clearly what Citadel miniatures represent each model/unit in the rules.

Again that is not an absolute; which is what you are couching it as.

You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

If it must be built a specific way because that way is Stated in the instructions as the particular type, which again catches your claim the Empire models cannot be acolytes because once you convert them you have not followed the instructions for constructing Empire Handgunners, and therefore have a Citadel Miniature that has no Name/title that happens to fit the description/wargear of a 40k unit

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

The instructions for the model tell you how to build it, including the choice of components to represent different variants of the model.

If it must be built a specific way because that way is Stated in the instructions as the particular type, which again catches your claim the Empire models cannot be acolytes because once you convert them you have not followed the instructions for constructing Empire Handgunners, and therefore have a Citadel Miniature that has no Name/title that happens to fit the description/wargear of a 40k unit

You're assuming that any combination of pieces of Citadel miniatures is a Citadel miniature. In reality when you combine those two kits all you have is some Citadel parts glued together without assembling a Citadel miniature, just like if you glued a bunch of extra sprues together and tried to call it a tactical squad.

Fortunately in this case most people would probably consider it a reasonable conversion and allow it under the previously mentioned house rule.

Does your interpretation of the rules flow into painting models. Since models are supplied unpainted do you need to paint them to use them and can you only use GW paints.

kranki wrote:
Does your interpretation of the rules flow into painting models. Since models are supplied unpainted do you need to paint them to use them and can you only use GW paints.

I don't really care because whatever the rule is RAW everyone has a different policy on that. GW's official ruling has no relevance in a real game.

 Palindrome wrote:
I am sure that GW rules have been starting with that exact same sentence for years and it has been roundly ignored so I don't see why it should have any particular relevance now.

It gets pointed out every edition sooner or later, usually in relation to somebody trying to argue in favour of some sort of creative modelling abuse.

The discussion generally goes about as well as this one has so far.

 Melissia wrote:
A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

This sadly applies to a heck of a lot of threads in this forum

 Melissia wrote:
A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

The thread should have just been locked after this ^

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

The instructions for the model tell you how to build it, including the choice of components to represent different variants of the model.

The instructions for the model, of course you realize, are not rules.

MFA and conversions for variety and rule of cool are all player conventions. How this is determined is not by the finished model, but about the intentions of the person who produces the model. Someone who produces a slightly smaller Riptide for the purpose of cover saves is MFA. A person who produces a slightly smaller Riptide because they had a kit bash idea and has made a epic model is doing so for fun. It's hard to distinguish the two on a internet forum.

Its really about the people you play, if you know them and their reasons why. In tournaments conversions are limited, to avoid abuse of the gaming system, especially when there is money involved, this is nothing against the people that convert, it's just the best and only way to keep WAAC MFA players from shutting down the scene.

Personally I don't like rules being brought into these things. If you don't want to play a converter or someone who MFA then you don't have to, but unless you really do know it is pure MFA I think it's wrong to label it MFA or tell people not to do it.

I believe with the vast majority of players, conversions which are close to actual model size which give a proportionate representation will revive no issues, even in many tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MFA and conversions for variety and rule of cool are all player conventions. How this is determined is not by the finished model, but about the intentions of the person who produces the model. Someone who produces a slightly smaller Riptide for the purpose of cover saves is MFA. A person who produces a slightly smaller Riptide because they had a kit bash idea and has made a epic model is doing so for fun. It's hard to distinguish the two on a internet forum.

Its really about the people you play, if you know them and their reasons why. In tournaments conversions are limited, to avoid abuse of the gaming system, especially when there is money involved, this is nothing against the people that convert, it's just the best and only way to keep WAAC MFA players from shutting down the scene.

Personally I don't like rules being brought into these things. If you don't want to play a converter or someone who MFA then you don't have to, but unless you really do know it is pure MFA I think it's wrong to label it MFA or tell people not to do it.

I believe with the vast majority of players, conversions which are close to actual model size which give a proportionate representation will recive no issues, even in most tournaments.

There are many instances on the Dakkadakka website where the YMDC sub-forum can be a valuable tool for hashing out the specifics of certain tricky rules, when despite the sometimes heated discussion, it can shed light on problematic wording and conflicting descriptions for those who read these posts.

But dang this probably isn't one of them.

Peregrine please, could you point out the exact page number where is the same statement as in the quote I pasted in this threads first post.

It is your duty to prove that there is tis kind of a ruling in the book as you made that statement.

If you say that UFOs exists it is not our job to prove that they do not exist.

Burden of proof is on your side.

Miniatures
• All of your models must be fully painted and based and fully represent what is on your army list (including all
equipment).
• Every miniature and component must be produced by Games Workshop (Citadel, Forge World or Warhammer Forge).
• We know many people like to take the opportunity to convert models for thematic and creative reasons. We actively
encourage this, but do ask that if you are going to do so, please check with the events team fi rst. We may ask you to
make allowances at the event in order to ensure there is no confusion for your opponents.
Proxies
• A “proxy miniature” is a model that is standing in for something else and has not been changed in any way. Examples
include using plastic Cadian Shock Troops as Stormtroopers, plastic Tyranid Raveners as Fiends of Slannesh or plastic
MORIA Goblins as Gundabad Blackshields.
• We do not allow any proxy miniatures at our events. If Games Workshop produces a model for a unit entry, we expect
you to use the correct model, for the sake of clarity to your opponent. (For conversions, please see the point above in
the ‘Miniatures’ section).
• If you wish to personalise your units and/or convert/kit bash plastic or Citadel Finecast kits to create your own unique
models that fi t your vision of your army, please check with the events team fi rst. We may ask you to make allowances at
the event in order to ensure enjoyment of your opponents. Simply gluing a scope to plastic Cadian Shock Trooper won’t
make him a Kasrkin, but adding a gnarly chainsword and an appropriate paint job to a tactical marine can easily make
him a heretic Chaos Marine Renegade

AS-PER: 2013 GW Throne of Skulls Tournament Rules
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf

Everyone is right. No, you can't use something not produced by *Citadel*. Yes you can kitbash (with permission of the judge).

 Peregrine wrote:

The GW website does offer lots of helpful tips, but it also has instructions. For example, it tells you what a Rhino model is. It doesn't say "here's a cool way to represent your Rhino but feel free to use others", it says "this is a Rhino".

But that's not rules!

Again, the alternative to this is complete absurdity where you can use a grot as a Land Raider because it's a Citadel miniature and you're never required to use the appropriate Citadel miniature.

Yes. And it is not any more absurd than claiming that you cannot convert models. But then we can use all this outside the rules content like product names and the modelling section to conclude how the game is actually meant to be played.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Show me the rule.

The rule is in the product title. GW assumes that you're intelligent enough to figure out that "use Citadel models" means "use the Citadel model with that unit name", not "use any Citadel model you want, regardless of how appropriate it is". It's kind of like how the movement rules never explicitly state that you pick up the model and move it to its new location, since everyone capable of reading and understanding the rulebook knows that's what you're supposed to do.

So you are calling it RAW awhile ago and now saying it is based in assumptions? Sorry mate, but you are reaching something fierce here. You've been asked severals times to provide a citation in the BRB of where it says you must use the appropriate Citadel Miniature, and have failed to do so. Why is that?

I have a hunch. It does not exist

And the one who said that GW does not release codexes without models anymore has a weird sense of time. Last saturday GW released codex: Inquisition, which still has acolytes with gear not available for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And game of throne tournament rules are not part of Warhammer 40K rules.

crazysaneman wrote:

Miniatures
• All of your models must be fully painted and based and fully represent what is on your army list (including all
equipment).
• Every miniature and component must be produced by Games Workshop (Citadel, Forge World or Warhammer Forge).
• We know many people like to take the opportunity to convert models for thematic and creative reasons. We actively
encourage this, but do ask that if you are going to do so, please check with the events team fi rst. We may ask you to
make allowances at the event in order to ensure there is no confusion for your opponents.
Proxies
• A “proxy miniature” is a model that is standing in for something else and has not been changed in any way. Examples
include using plastic Cadian Shock Troops as Stormtroopers, plastic Tyranid Raveners as Fiends of Slannesh or plastic
MORIA Goblins as Gundabad Blackshields.
• We do not allow any proxy miniatures at our events. If Games Workshop produces a model for a unit entry, we expect
you to use the correct model, for the sake of clarity to your opponent. (For conversions, please see the point above in
the ‘Miniatures’ section).
• If you wish to personalise your units and/or convert/kit bash plastic or Citadel Finecast kits to create your own unique
models that fi t your vision of your army, please check with the events team fi rst. We may ask you to make allowances at
the event in order to ensure enjoyment of your opponents. Simply gluing a scope to plastic Cadian Shock Trooper won’t
make him a Kasrkin, but adding a gnarly chainsword and an appropriate paint job to a tactical marine can easily make
him a heretic Chaos Marine Renegade

AS-PER: 2013 GW Throne of Skulls Tournament Rules
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf

Everyone is right. No, you can't use something not produced by *Citadel*. Yes you can kitbash (with permission of the judge).

This is cool and all but not the BRB. It's just some tournament rules. Now if we want to say that these have some official bearing on games outside the tournament then please bear in mind the part where it says all models must be fully painted and based - once and for all ending the debate on whether you have to paint your minaitures.

Seriously, there is nowhere in the BRB where it explicitly states you must use Citadel Miniatures. The sentence, "The citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as model in the rules that follow" is the closest we get. Some people are just interpreting this sentence to mean that - but in reality it is a poorly worded sentence in a poorly worded ruleset which can have different interpretations. Which is why RAW arguments are ridiculous in this game.

Further, there is absolutely no where in the BRB it says you must follow the instructions when assembling your models. If so please quote the rule and page number for me.

Served!!

Its up to you Peregrin to provide the RAW page number...

If you use non-citadel miniatures they are not referred to as models in the rules. In fact, they're not referred to as anything.

That's RAW. To use non-Citadel minis, find a passage that tells you "models" is more generic than that.

Peregrine is 100% correct RaW no conversions or non-citadel miniatures. As for page ref check page 2 first sentence this shows permission to use citadel miniatures. Conversions are not citadel miniatures (citadel don't make a model or an Empire Hand gunner carrying a boltgun), anything made not by the instructions ceases to be a citadel miniature.

If you want to use a conversion or any other non-citadel miniature in RaW you need show proof of permission.

As for using the corresponding character that is covered start of page 3. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile" so a tactical space marine model has a profile, a landraider model has a profile thus if you are using a Landraider model you get the Landraider profile and if not you don't.

I'm going to stab my eyes out and inhale some anthrax, brb.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Conversions are not citadel miniatures (citadel don't make a model or an Empire Hand gunner carrying a boltgun), anything made not by the instructions ceases to be a citadel miniature.

Do you have a rules reference to back up this statement?

 Soladrin wrote:
I'm going to stab my eyes out and inhale some anthrax, brb.

Why. The rule makes perfect sense and means that any conversion has to be an agreed house rule with your opponent (or TO). It just means you can always call shenanigans on anyone trying to pull MFA on you.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you use non-citadel miniatures they are not referred to as models in the rules. In fact, they're not referred to as anything.

That's RAW. To use non-Citadel minis, find a passage that tells you "models" is more generic than that.

That is not what I was arguing, Nor what this topic is about; it is about kit-bashing and using "non-standard" Citadel minatures(Say Bretonian Knights Errant as Rough Riders in an IG list)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you use non-citadel miniatures they are not referred to as models in the rules. In fact, they're not referred to as anything.

That's RAW. To use non-Citadel minis, find a passage that tells you "models" is more generic than that.

That is not what I was arguing, Nor what this topic is about; it is about kit-bashing and using "non-standard" Citadel minatures(Say Bretonian Knights Errant as Rough Riders in an IG list)

That's fair - I was going off the last few posts before mine which seemed to indicate they were arguing using non-citadel minis.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Peregrine is 100% correct RaW no conversions or non-citadel miniatures. As for page ref check page 2 first sentence this shows permission to use citadel miniatures. Conversions are not citadel miniatures (citadel don't make a model or an Empire Hand gunner carrying a boltgun), anything made not by the instructions ceases to be a citadel miniature.

If you want to use a conversion or any other non-citadel miniature in RaW you need show proof of permission.

As for using the corresponding character that is covered start of page 3. "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile" so a tactical space marine model has a profile, a landraider model has a profile thus if you are using a Landraider model you get the Landraider profile and if not you don't.

No where Near.

Kit-Bashed, 100% Citadel Miniatures, are citadel Miniatures, every component is made by citadel, and the specific bits are also from Citadel.

Or can you not use a Plasma Cannon Marine from the devastator box as a Plasma Cannon Heavy Weapon in your tac squad(which is what Peregrine is saying)?

Edit:Spelling

 undertow wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Conversions are not citadel miniatures (citadel don't make a model or an Empire Hand gunner carrying a boltgun), anything made not by the instructions ceases to be a citadel miniature.

Do you have a rules reference to back up this statement?

The rules don't define what a citadel miniature is (or what "the" means or lots of other words a phrases in the book). So we use the normal definition of a citadel miniature which would be a miniature produced by citadel miniatures. Conversions are not miniatures produced by citadel miniatures. If you disagree just show me where in citadel's catalog it has an Empire Handgunner with boltgun? (Online catalog is the only one available so technically there is an argument that OOP models can't be used).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No where Near.

Kit-Bashed, 100% Citadel Miniatures, are citadel Miniatures, every component is made by citadel, and the specific bits are also from Citadel.

Not true Citadel miniatures are the miniatures that citadel produces. So you have to build them as per the instructions for them to be citadel miniatures otherwise they are miniatures of your own design using citadel parts. There is no permission to use miniatures of your own design unless you'd like to point me to it?

Or can you not use a Plasma Cannon Marine from the devastator box as a Plasma Cannon Heavy Weapon in your tac squad(which is what Peregrine is saying)?

RaW no you can't. What is your point? Peregrine has been very clear on what is RAW and on what the standard player conventions are. This came about because someone claimed their MFA dreadnaught was allowed RAW and Peregrine pointed out no conversions are allowed RaW...

 FlingitNow wrote:

The rules don't define what a citadel miniature is (or what "the" means or lots of other words a phrases in the book). So we use the normal definition of a citadel miniature which would be a miniature produced by citadel miniatures. Conversions are not miniatures produced by citadel miniatures. If you disagree just show me where in citadel's catalog it has an Empire Handgunner with boltgun? (Online catalog is the only one available so technically there is an argument that OOP models can't be used).

Well, actually citadel mostly produces sprues containing model bits.

Not true Citadel miniatures are the miniatures that citadel produces. So you have to build them as per the instructions for them to be citadel miniatures otherwise they are miniatures of your own design using citadel parts. There is no permission to use miniatures of your own design unless you'd like to point me to it?

Tell you what. Combine some space wolf bits with tactical marine bits, cast the resulting model and start selling copies of it. Lets see how GW's lawyers feel about your theory of it being your own design.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Conversions are not citadel miniatures (citadel don't make a model or an Empire Hand gunner carrying a boltgun), anything made not by the instructions ceases to be a citadel miniature.

Do you have a rules reference to back up this statement?

The rules don't define what a citadel miniature is (or what "the" means or lots of other words a phrases in the book). So we use the normal definition of a citadel miniature which would be a miniature produced by citadel miniatures. Conversions are not miniatures produced by citadel miniatures. If you disagree just show me where in citadel's catalog it has an Empire Handgunner with boltgun? (Online catalog is the only one available so technically there is an argument that OOP models can't be used).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No where Near.

Kit-Bashed, 100% Citadel Miniatures, are citadel Miniatures, every component is made by citadel, and the specific bits are also from Citadel.

Not true Citadel miniatures are the miniatures that citadel produces. So you have to build them as per the instructions for them to be citadel miniatures otherwise they are miniatures of your own design using citadel parts. There is no permission to use miniatures of your own design unless you'd like to point me to it?

Or can you not use a Plasma Cannon Marine from the devastator box as a Plasma Cannon Heavy Weapon in your tac squad(which is what Peregrine is saying)?

RaW no you can't. What is your point? Peregrine has been very clear on what is RAW and on what the standard player conventions are. This came about because someone claimed their MFA dreadnaught was allowed RAW and Peregrine pointed out no conversions are allowed RaW...

Kindly Quote the RAW on what a "Citadel Miniature" is.

Also A Devastaor Box produced Plasma cannon citadel Miniature is not simply a citadel Miniature How exactly?What rules do you have to back up that a citadel miniature of the common acceptance of a Plasma cannon armed space marine is only a devastator marine and not any plasma cannon armed space marine?

Also which arms, legs, torsos and heads am I supposed to use together; If I get one wrong clearly by your definition I no longer have a "Citadel Miniature" right?

We have actually had this same thread many times, and it boils down to some people thinking that assembly instructions that come in (some of) the kits are somehow more valid rules material than the modelling section in the BRB.

I've just noticed how the usual YMDC regulars have come nowhere near this thread; speaks volumes for its legitimacy.

'Sorry guys, the hundreds to thousands you've spent on your forgeworld models are null and void, theres no rule that says you can use them'


thats basically the gist of this thread.
While i disagree (theres a whole flipping section about kitbashing) i'll just go back to lurking.

Kindly Quote the RAW on what a "Citadel Miniature" is.

When you kindly quote RAW on what "the" means.

Also A Devastaor Box produced Plasma cannon citadel Miniature is not simply a citadel Miniature How exactly?

It is a Citadel miniature. Just not one with a tactical marines profile. It is a devastator marine, why? Because that's what GW tell us it is.

What rules do you have to back up that a citadel miniature of the common acceptance of a Plasma cannon armed space marine is only a devastator marine and not any plasma cannon armed space marine?

Citadel tell us what the miniature is. The rules are to use citadel miniatures and that each of those miniatures have their own profile.

Also which arms, legs, torsos and heads am I supposed to use together; If I get one wrong clearly by your definition I no longer have a "Citadel Miniature" right?

You have to construct the models as citadel tells you for it to be a citadel miniature. They create the miniatures and define what parts make the model and how.

Tell you what. Combine some space wolf bits with tactical marine bits, cast the resulting model and start selling copies of it. Lets see how GW's lawyers feel about your theory of it being your own design.

Infringement of IP is not the issue. If I take a Dyson and rebuild it to be held upside down. That is no longer a Dyson. However I try to mass produce that and sell it Dyson sue me and win. We are told to use citadel miniatures and that each miniature has its own profile. So we check what citadel says are its miniaturesand what those miniatures are. It really is as simple as that RAW. I'm not claiming that anyone should play like that EVER. I'm not claiming I won't allow converted models in games or that anyone should disallow converted or kitbashed models. However this rule gives you an out against anyone trying to pull MFA on you.

Good thing my counts as models are made from melted down GW sprue, otherwise I would be screwed.

'Sorry guys, the hundreds to thousands you've spent on your forgeworld models are null and void, theres no rule that says you can use them'

Have you not bothered to read what people have said or is that simply a deliberate misrepresentation of what we've been saying in an attempt to discredit one side of the argument?

 juraigamer wrote:
Good thing my counts as models are made from melted down GW sprue, otherwise I would be screwed.

Boom! Loop hole, achieved!

Spruecrons, to the rescue!

 Soladrin wrote:
I'm going to stab my eyes out and inhale some anthrax, brb.

I'll need to see the page number and quote permitting you to do that. Can't have you dying for advantage on us.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." Nice bit of information, but its not permission to use citadel miniatures to play the game, it presumes you already have that permission and is only informing you that those miniatures will be refereed to as models. "Both players will need an army of miniatures to enjoy a game." under 'What you will Need' does not require that the army be made of citadel miniatures. This is also not permission. You are never given permission to use any models in this game nor do the rules ever identify which citadel miniature you must use to represent each unit. There is no such thing as the appropriate citadel miniature and that you will be using citadel miniatures is a convenient assumption on the part of the rules.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
I've just noticed how the usual YMDC regulars have come nowhere near this thread; speaks volumes for its legitimacy.

There could be another reason.....

Not worth the effort...

 Dakkamite wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
I'm going to stab my eyes out and inhale some anthrax, brb.

I'll need to see the page number and quote permitting you to do that. Can't have you dying for advantage on us.

Have an exalt!
(Although the noun is "quotation", "quote" is the conjugation of the verb. Sorry. )

Flingitnow: Please confirm this - If I take a space marine head from the assault squad, and put it on a tactical marine, is this now no longer a Citadel miniature, as per the RAW?

 DJGietzen wrote:
"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." Nice bit of information, but its not permission to use citadel miniatures to play the game, it presumes you already have that permission and is only informing you that those miniatures will be refereed to as models. "Both players will need an army of miniatures to enjoy a game." under 'What you will Need' does not require that the army be made of citadel miniatures. This is also not permission. You are never given permission to use any models in this game nor do the rules ever identify which citadel miniature you must use to represent each unit. There is no such thing as the appropriate citadel miniature and that you will be using citadel miniatures is a convenient assumption on the part of the rules.

The rules do indeed define what an army is. That is permission for models to be citadel miniatures the army rules tell us what models we can use you need permission to use something other than a citadel miniature as a model if you want to. They tell us that all the models have profiles so again each model has a definition of what it is game terms. This has all already been posted so I assume you have just entered into the thread without having read it.

This is not a great idea. If you're posting for comedic effect like the sprue army you can get away with it because you're playing the fool. If you want to contribute please read the thread before posting it will help the discussion move forward rather than going in constant circles.

So Dakka is now arguing about Conversions being legal in RAW...

Even when its 100% Citadel...

Ok now I've lost faith in the Dakka community, if were arguing on what looks cool and what's MFA then it is a day to weep..

Doesn't GW encourage conversions through WD? I see plenty of them in the Blanchistu articles...

I laugh and cringe for this community I really do..

 happygolucky wrote:
So Dakka is now arguing about Conversions being legal in RAW...

Even when its 100% Citadel...

Ok now I've lost faith in the Dakka community, if were arguing on what looks cool and what's MFA then it is a day to weep..

Doesn't GW encourage conversions through WD? I see plenty of them in the Blanchistu articles...

I laugh and cringe for this community I really do..

One person is arguing against. A few people are arguing for. Most of the regular YMDCers are silent because this is not worth the time or effort.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
I've just noticed how the usual YMDC regulars have come nowhere near this thread; speaks volumes for its legitimacy.

You must not have read the thread...

All of these posts are in this thread, and all of these users, as of 11-13-2013 have more posts in YMDC than any other area of Dakka...

You might want to rethink your statement.

rigeld2 wrote:
[Content Removed]

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
[Content Removed]

 insaniak wrote:
[Content Removed]

 DeathReaper wrote:
[Content Removed]

 Nem wrote:
[Content Removed]

 liturgies of blood wrote:
[Content Removed]

 Crimson wrote:
[Content Removed] /quote]