Just wondering peoples thoughts on this. In the 2nd edition box set there was a carboard stand up for the Ork Dread, its still cool to use this I'm assuming?

Yep. Thats pretty cool.

That's what I thought as well.

Open Fire for FoW also came with cardboard terrain to help people get started. I thought that was a good idea too. Its like a jump start for totally new players to get into the rules.

It does everything the model does but cheaper, lighter and easier to move. So yea no loss using it.

It does break immersion a little, but I'd be fine with it.

We can't speak on behalf of your opponents, though, so it's always worth checking with them before the game. Social contract and all that.

Some TOs might not approve but I'm sure all in noncompetitive games your opponent would be cool with it. I'd be fine playing against that.

It's not a model.

It's a cardboard cutout that was included in the 2nd edition starter set to flesh out the Ork side for the last scenario.

Is it an official Citadel miniature? If yes then it really doesn't matter from a RAW standpoint since what makes a miniature a miniature inconclusive at best (i.E there is no raw saying that the model must be metal,plastic,resin, etc)

it is pretty odd seeing something so old being used since it doesn't look like its newer incarnation but the way i see it it isn't much* different from using almost as old metal models.


(* subjective)

Competitively no... its not a "model" regardless of GW making it 20 years ago.

in fun games haha y not

but its lack of a base etc and oh look its side on profile for LOS... just screams no.

Ahh here is something from the rule book that should shed some light on the situation.

on page 8 First sentence "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of a Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." So that answers that question on what a model is for the game, a Citidel miniature.

pg 9 under Models and Base sizes

"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."


So go on ahead and use the cutout but just be sure to have another model of the right base and size you can switch with for purposes of LOS and such.

Oberron wrote:
Ahh here is something from the rule book that should shed some light on the situation.

on page 8 First sentence "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of a Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." So that answers that question on what a model is for the game, a Citidel miniature.

pg 9 under Models and Base sizes

"Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren't supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between), you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance."


So go on ahead and use the cutout but just be sure to have another model of the right base and size you can switch with for purposes of LOS and such.

Though that rule says to put a base on the irregular model, not to swap it out mid-game to check LOS. "using models of a similar type as guidance" in determining which sized base to use.

I wouldn't be fine with it - LOS issues etc. plus it just doesn't look good to have 1 cutout among actual three-dimensional models.

many of the actual miniatures from 2nd edition era have some magic to them, more than this.

incase no one recalls the metal RT/early 2nd landspeeder, its about the size of an ork in mega armor doing a superman on a jetbike fight stand.

they are still legal technically.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as we counted its dimensions the same as the current plastic model.

I wouldn't play against it. You can tell me its an official model till your blue in the face, but we would both know your trying for an in game advantage you shouldn't have.

well, it is an official miniature, isn't it? The fact it's only two dimensions surely doesn't change that.

Please someone post a photo of this object, I've never seen one...

There is no way this can be answered.... it completely depends on the player or TO.

Personally, I think it rocks. Make some allowances for its unusual shape, and don't do things like turn it sideways to hide behind a lamp post and you should be fine. I could even see many TOs being okay with this. (Assuming it is the actual 2E cut out, and not just something you made at home)

It's fine in the right context. A game against someone you don't know is probably not the right context and potentially quite insulting.

its in the top right corner of pic...it does say copyright GW on the upper left of the cardboard so it is a GW miniature.... lol

Regardless of whether it's official or not, It's not the same size or shape as the current model - I would not accept playing against it in a "serious" game.

Would you be bothered if someone asked you to remove marine models you had out because they were from 4 editions ago and were smaller than the current models?

Ironically the cardboard cut out is wider than the current ork dred, but of course being cardboard its thickness is significantly less

I am using 20+ year old land raider and land speeders. The normal reaction has been "Cool". The fact that the models are 1) smaller than the current equivalents and 2) older than many that play in the club doesn't seem to be an issue.

Ideally, all the models should be 3d but why not just let it go.

As for the posters claiming the OP is only trying to gain an unfair advantage - common guys, get a life. This is a game. If your opponenet hasn't the cash to fund a newer model , or hasn't yet then just look at is as being inclusive or that the local mekk-boy has done a really good job with building a camo' system hiding the can from the side.

I would absolutely let you use it. I started in 2nd edition and had the box set; for nostalgia, I'd love to battle the cardboard Ork dreadnought again.

blaktoof wrote:
Would you be bothered if someone asked you to remove marine models you had out because they were from 4 editions ago and were smaller than the current models?

Ironically the cardboard cut out is wider than the current ork dred, but of course being cardboard its thickness is significantly less

I have been asked to not use my old rogue trader rhinos in a tournament, since they are significantly smaller - I complied and understood why, since I could hide them behind terrain that normal rhinos couldn't. Lots of tournaments specifically disallow very old models that are not the same size as current ones (with the exception of themed forces that use models from a specific era).

Anyhow, you can't seriously be arguing that a cardboard cutout is "the same size and shape" as an actual model. THAT'S what I don't like about it - that it's a slab of cardboard, with no thickness. Besides breaking immersion, it doesn't have a proper base, you can't easily resolve side arcs, etc. I'm suprised at how many people in this thread think it's acceptable because it's an "official" model. Obviously it's okay in fun games, but I would be really annoyed if someone just used it all the time as an extra dreadnought - you really ought to bring an actual model.

It doesn't take too much wit or creativity to figure out how to play with this and treat it as if it were a full 3D dreadnought. I've never understood the "immersion" argument on any level, but if people would prefer to nit-pick about something as inconsequential as that, I'd suggest that you won't want to play a game with them for 3 hours anyway.

At least try to put SOME effort into the modeling aspect of the game. If you really don't care about the immersion and modeling, then I'm not sure why you would play 40k over other more abstract wargames (which are far superior from a gameplay perspetive).

what if someone took two of the ork dred cut slits halfway down one and halfway up the other, and combined them at a point so one is perpendicular to the other forming a + when you look down onto it.

Now it has thickness

Official GW. Use away.

Basically anyone would play you except Dan beaver and barbobot.

If some ones to target it comrade the side turn the darn thing so they can.

 Mythra wrote:
Official GW. .

The box the Leman Russ comes in is also made by GW. Can I use it as a tank?


A piece of cardboard with a picture on it is not a model.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
Official GW. .

The box the Leman Russ comes in is also made by GW. Can I use it as a tank?


A piece of cardboard with a picture on it is not a model.

Unless it was released by GW as an official model. Which it was.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
Official GW. .

The box the Leman Russ comes in is also made by GW. Can I use it as a tank?


A piece of cardboard with a picture on it is not a model.

I'll inform all my opponents to remove all scratch built items made of card stock. I think that's everything in most ork armies around here.

-Matt

jamesk1973 wrote:
Basically anyone would play you except Dan beaver and barbobot.

Hey now, I said I would play against it - I just call shenanigans on the concept that "it's okay because it's an official model"

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I'll inform all my opponents to remove all scratch built items made of card stock.

Yeah, because that's totally what I said.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Unless it was released by GW as an official model...

...which it wasn't. It's a stand in for use in a scenario in the 2nd edition starter set.

To the OP.

No.

I love nostalgia as much as the next guy, but a 2 dimensional model is unacceptable for gaming purposes, and is frankly insulting to hobbyists, who take pride in the construction and painting of their models.

It looks to me to made by GW and looks to be fielded. If you cut out anything off their boxes it was never meant to take the field.

I wouldn't mind playing against it initially, as a stand in dread model. But not if you're still using it 6 months down the line; at some point you should be getting an actual model for it.

Zimko wrote:


Though that rule says to put a base on the irregular model, not to swap it out mid-game to check LOS. "using models of a similar type as guidance" in determining which sized base to use.

My mistake on the reading of it. So just toss it on the right size base for the model then. Raw its a model as per the rules i quoted earlier but some people will have problems with it because it isn't "standard".

If you intended to play with it, I would laugh at you, and deride you mercilessly. But beyond that yeah play away.

StewRat wrote:
As for the posters claiming the OP is only trying to gain an unfair advantage - common guys, get a life. This is a game.

Thank you!

Hells yeah, I'd play against it.

Anyone else remember the old Eldar Avatar? The one that is actually smaller than a current standard Marine? That one I might have an issue with, but then again, my IG army is pretty much all RT era models, so who am I to talk.

 don_mondo wrote:
Hells yeah, I'd play against it.

Anyone else remember the old Eldar Avatar? The one that is actually smaller than a current standard Marine? That one I might have an issue with, but then again, my IG army is pretty much all RT era models, so who am I to talk.

The only Epic avatar was smaller. The old 2nd Edition Avatar was mounted on a 40mm square base

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The only 40K avatar was smaller.

That picture is of the Epic model of an Avatar, not a 40k model.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The only 40K avatar was smaller.

That picture is of the Epic model of an Avatar, not a 40k model.

Thank you for spotting my error, I had meant to say Epic. I have duly updated my post

 DanielBeaver wrote:
At least try to put SOME effort into the modeling aspect of the game. If you really don't care about the immersion and modeling, then I'm not sure why you would play 40k over other more abstract wargames (which are far superior from a gameplay perspetive).

He's not taking a piece of paper and writing "dreadnaught" or "model" on it; this isn't simply being a frustrating person running proxies just to be a dick.

It's a neat throwback, it was an official miniature and it's neat to show off that you still have it and, by extension, use. I agree that it's probably not a good capp for tournament play, but in friendly games (with strangers or no) I see no reason to exclude it.

With regards to the people arguing that it's being used for advantage.. Seriously? if you're shooting at it from the side just put your finger on it, hold it in the same place, and turn it to face to see if you have a clear shot or not / what kind of cover it gets. Deff dreads are 12/12/10, and it's pretty easy to see where it's facing. I honestly don't see any problems..

As with alot of these types of questions, game setting and game timing are key.

Setting:
Your playing me in my basement at 3 am, bring it. Your playing me at the FLGS, bring it. Your playing me in an event with some sort of prize, its the TO's call. I have played against one and the owner had it on the correct base so CCW attacks were not an issue. For shooting attacks it was a bit harder but it worked out.

Timing:
You just got it from somewhere and your testing out how the dred does in a game. No issues. Youve had it for 10 years using it every weekend in games. Issue.

You find me a unit entry in the Ork Codex called "Ork Dreadnaught" and I'll let you field it. It doesn't look like a picture of any current model and doesn't share a name with any current unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
You find me a unit entry in the Ork Codex called "Ork Dreadnaught" and I'll let you field it. It doesn't look like a picture of any current model and doesn't share a name with any current unit.

Same entry in the codex that lets people field old metal models that came in a package labeled Ork Dreadnought. How something was originally labeled has no bearing on whether or not it can be fielded under a different name in the new codex. Or are you also going to say that I have to buy all new IG since many of mine were labeled as Imperial Army vice the current AM? Would you ban my old plastic beret Stormtroopers because they weren't labeled as Scions? If you're going to object, at least come up with a reasonable objection.

 Kriswall wrote:
Or are you also going to say that I have to buy all new IG since many of mine were labeled as Imperial Army vice the current AM?

Careful now, you'll give GW ideas.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
the only Epic avatar was smaller. The old 2nd Edition Avatar was mounted on a 40mm square base

There was a RT-era Avatar that was smaller than the current (2nd ed) one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oberron wrote:
Raw its a model as per the rules i quoted earlier ...

No, it isn't.

It's a cardboard cutout intended as a stand-in for a specific scenario in the starter set. It is neither model, nor miniature. It's no more a model than a coke can being used as a stand-in for a drop pod.

It's not a a stand in, it is a model. It was used as a model in a scenario for the game it came with.

Was there another metal model you could purchase that was the same, yes? Was GW going to put a metal dred in their box, no.

It even came with its own 20mm slotta base, models go on bases

it is more a model than a coke can, it was officially produced by GW as a model for use in a scenario in their boxed set, was there a metal version you could purchase of the same model. Yes.

GW did not make a scenario in any of its boxed sets that was a coke can that would be a drop pod.

also neither of the eldar pics above is the RT era avatar, which also fit on a 20mm slotta base. It did have a spear, and was holding it perpendicular to its body iirc.

You can really see what era folks started in by the reactions in this thread. Us old era players love it the new era players don't like it, for the most part.

Well, I started in 5th and I'd be happy to face it because it's a cool and amusing piece of history. It's like my friend who still uses his 25mm-based Terminators: I tease him about it, but I'm not seriously going to complain.

Now, I'm assuming that the person fielding the cardnought is willing to turn it to check LOS. If you won't do that then you're MFA in an annoying way, but I have a hard time imagining someone being that difficult.

barnowl wrote:
You can really see what era folks started in by the reactions in this thread. Us old era players love it the new era players don't like it, for the most part.

It's pretty sad if you shut down any valid argument by saying "We started earlier!". And as you can see in this very thread, there also are "vets" who dislike it for pretty good reasons.

Been playing since 3rd edition. I don't think its unreasonable to object to a thin piece of cardboard with a picture on it as a 40k model.

barnowl wrote:
You can really see what era folks started in by the reactions in this thread. Us old era players love it the new era players don't like it, for the most part.

The 2nd ed starter set was my second purchase for Warhammer 40000 (the first being Baharroth and Maugan Ra, before I knew there was a game to go with them ) ... So, no, it's not as basic as a 'vets vs newbs' situation.


I dislike it now for the same reason I disliked it back then - it's not a model, and it looks rubbish in a miniatures game. For a one-off scenario it's passable. As an actual part of someone's army it's on par with running a bunch of empty bases and calling them Tactical Marines, or the aforementioned coke can.

barnowl wrote:
You can really see what era folks started in by the reactions in this thread. Us old era players love it the new era players don't like it, for the most part.

The 2nd edition set was what I started out with, and I still have that cardboard cutout dreadnought around here somewhere. The only reason it was in the set was as a placeholder so that new players could try out the vehicle rules.

I have one of those old avatars somewhere....




young whippersnappers don't know thier history.

Not only do I think you should use that cardboard, I think you should make an entire army out of them.

 insaniak wrote:

Oberron wrote:
Raw its a model as per the rules i quoted earlier ...

No, it isn't.

It's a cardboard cutout intended as a stand-in for a specific scenario in the starter set. It is neither model, nor miniature. It's no more a model than a coke can being used as a stand-in for a drop pod.

Can you find something that goes against the rules that I posted?

As for the coke can being a stand-in, was it released officially by GW to be used as a drop pod? Yes it is a cardboard cutout, but it's an official cardboard cutout that is to be used as an Ork Dread. That is like saying you can't use the helbrute or any of the models from the Dark Vengeance box because those models are suppose to be used for the demo set-up that comes with it.

barnowl wrote:
You can really see what era folks started in by the reactions in this thread. Us old era players love it the new era players don't like it, for the most part.

I started in September. I just feel like if someone has the official thing that is made by GW says it is suppose to be XXX then they should be able to use it. I do like playing sisters because their models have some weight to them and it feels like i'm taking a glimpse at the past. Crons will still be my first love and i still enjoy playing them all the same, but it just feels "different".

Oberron wrote:

Zimko wrote:


Though that rule says to put a base on the irregular model, not to swap it out mid-game to check LOS. "using models of a similar type as guidance" in determining which sized base to use.

My mistake on the reading of it. So just toss it on the right size base for the model then. Raw its a model as per the rules i quoted earlier but some people will have problems with it because it isn't "standard".

Good luck drawing Line of sight with it to shoot anything. Since it does not have a weapon mounting or barrel to draw Line of Sight from it can never make any shots.

Oberron wrote:
Can you find something that goes against the rules that I posted?

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Yes it is a cardboard cutout, but it's an official cardboard cutout that is to be used as an Ork Dread.

... for a specific scenario.

It was not released as an Ork dreadnought. It was included in the starter set as a stand-in.

That is like saying you can't use the helbrute or any of the models from the Dark Vengeance box because those models are suppose to be used for the demo set-up that comes with it.

Sure. Aside from the fact that it's nothing like that, it's exactly like that.

I just feel like if someone has the official thing that is made by GW says it is suppose to be XXX then they should be able to use it.

And I totally agree. If someone has an official Dredd model, they're welcome to use it.

If they have a cardboard cutout of a dredd, because they just want to try out a dredd in their army before they actually go an buy one, and they bring that up before the game... then in most cases they're likely to be welcome to use it.

Beyond that, though... It's not a model. It's not a particularly good stand-in for a model. Put it in your 'Curios from Dayes of Yore' box and move on.

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

It was not released as an Ork dreadnought. It was included in the starter set as a stand-in.

Why does "included... as a stand-in" make it any different since it can be used as it according to GW because that is what its purpose is suppose to be?

And I totally agree. If someone has an official Dredd model, they're welcome to use it.

i'm glad we are at an agreement here.

If they have a cardboard cutout of a dredd, because they just want to try out a dredd in their army before they actually go an buy one, and they bring that up before the game... then in most cases they're likely to be welcome to use it.

Beyond that, though... It's not a model. It's not a particularly good stand-in for a model. Put it in your 'Curios from Dayes of Yore' box and move on.

Is it's purpose suppose to represent an Ork Dread? Is it officially suppose to be used as an Ork Dread and is made by GW? If no to either or both of those questions could you answer why GW included it in the box if it wasn't suppose to be played as an ork dread?

Oberron wrote:
Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Can you quote any rules that say that my shoe isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Why does "included... as a stand-in" make it any different since it can be used as it according to GW because that is what its purpose is suppose to be?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Is it's purpose suppose to represent an Ork Dread?

...for a specific scenario in a starter set.

Is it officially suppose to be used as an Ork Dread and is made by GW?

It is officially supposed to be used as an Ork dread in that specific scenario from the starter set.

That doesn't make it a miniature. It makes it a stand-in that GW included to let people try out a dreadnought in that specific scenario in the starter set.

The giveaway that it is not a miniature is the fact that it is not, in fact, a miniature. It is instead a piece of cardboard with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

No side will convince the other of their respective view. It's the internet, after all.

And in the end, it's up to the players whether they would let someone play with a cutout or not. No TO worth a damn will allow it, but friends might be ok with it.

nkelsch wrote:
The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

 don_mondo wrote:
So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Absolutely.
And in no way does that cardboard standout adequately represent the current unit.

I do not believe it should be needed to shell out hundreds of euros to enjoy this game. I do not particularly like painting, I simply do not have time to spend hours doing it but I also refuse to field unpainted models.

That said, I see no problem with someone fielding this, but I'd expect them to get an actual miniature eventually (I'm fine by non-GW products also).

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Absolutely.
And in no way does that cardboard standout adequately represent the current unit.

And if he had said that (doesn't represent) instead of his 'previous edition' statement, I wouldn't have called BS.

Haha. Just don't turn it sideways torward the enemy at the end of every move and you'll be fine

Naw wrote:
That said, I see no problem with someone fielding this, but I'd expect them to get an actual miniature eventually (I'm fine by non-GW products also).

I think that's the gist of it. It's fine as a fun one-off, but the fun goes sour if you start fielding it regularly to the exclusion of using an actual model.

I don't think it should be objected against, because its cardboard.

It could be objected against for not being WYSIWYG, unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon. Which orks can't get.

Sometime around 3rd orks recieved the "klingon treatment" and went from having things like lascannons, plasmacannons, and being BS3 WS3 to getting angrier and becoming WS4 BS2...and making all of their weapons out of metal bawkses welded together with bullets pressed against one end that psychically come out the other end..

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

 don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Yeah, that is what 'Counts As' is for. If there is a reasonable application of old models to new rules, and your opponent agrees, no problem. Lots of my RT orks are lacking appropriate weapons and could exploit LOS due to size. My RT orks in Terminator/power armor might not make great Orks in Mega armor and some might feel I am using a model with no rules for an advantage. I could see why people might have legitimate complaints about my RT terminator orks being 7th edition mega nobs. Lots of ork models no longer have rules and can only exist with 'counts as/proxying'. Some do have rules and they get to use their rules.

If the old models match the current rules, weapons, profile you can use 'Counts as' to use them in a game... but to demand and force anyone to do anything in a game based on social interactions is insane.

That paper Dread has no place in games without opponent's consent, and should be banned from tourneys.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

The rules require you to trace LoS "along" the barrel of a weapon.
Please explain how to trace along the barrel of a 2 dimensional object.

No one has ever said anything about my 2nd Edition CSM models on the board. I don't think anyone should say anything about your 2nd edition cutout.

I remember playing against someone with cutout Rhinos, back in the day. The complaint used to be that it costs over $100 to create an army, back then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

The rules require you to trace LoS "along" the barrel of a weapon.
Please explain how to trace along the barrel of a 2 dimensional object.

Now you are getting into theoretical mathmatical discussions, but you could measure from the point on the "weapon" that does exist. You could even argue that the paint has a third dimension. However, let's not get too far away from the point I was trying to make. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

Shooting is not why I brought up my point. You can make an arguement for not shooting and yours is a good one. I am making an arguement that the lack of a dimension does not prohibit its use for play in the game. If I assume, for the sake of agruement, that a 2D weapon can't shoot, why couldn't the cardboard model still be used in say hand to hand?

I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model.

An irrelevant statement, as shown throughout the thread.

But I'm done. I would refuse to play against one and that's where I'll leave it.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It does not have "weapons" it has cardboard and paint. it has a picture of a weapon, but it does not have a weapon.

Normal 3D models have phys reps of weapons, the Cardboard cut out of the Ork Dread do not have phys reps of weapons it has cardboard and paint (Or ink if you want to get technical).

and Vehicle weapons are surely required to be 3D as you trace Line of Sight for a vehicle weapon, from its mounting along the barrel...

Bottom line you will never have Line of Sight for shooting with that cardboard cutout.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It is actually not a citadel miniature, it is a cardboard cutout.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow." (Models and Units chapter, Models and Units section, 1st non-italicized graph).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It does not have "weapons" it has cardboard and paint. it has a picture of a weapon, but it does not have a weapon.

Normal 3D models have phys reps of weapons, the Cardboard cut out of the Ork Dread do not have phys reps of weapons it has cardboard and paint (Or ink if you want to get technical).

and Vehicle weapons are surely required to be 3D as you trace Line of Sight for a vehicle weapon, from its mounting along the barrel...

Bottom line you will never have Line of Sight for shooting with that cardboard cutout.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It is actually not a citadel miniature, it is a cardboard cutout.



"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow." (Models and Units chapter, Models and Units section, 1st non-italicized graph).

It does have "weapons". A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Oberron wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Please provide the evidence that the cardboard cutout was released as a model.

You still have the 2nd edition starter box contents handy, right, to prove that you have the authentic cardboard dreadnought?

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

 solkan wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Please provide the evidence that the cardboard cutout was released as a model.

You still have the 2nd edition starter box contents handy, right, to prove that you have the authentic cardboard dreadnought?

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

I'm not the one with the starter box. I also did not know that it has that line. That pretty much settles it right there and then. GW says it isn't a real substitute for a Citadel Model then it isn't one. Thread done.

WOW, I can't believe this thread went on 3 pages of heated discussion.

In a friendly game I'd allow it.

If they were started being a douche, trying to model to advantage with it, I'd rebase it for them, onto a proper size base, and conduct measurements to the base.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
It does have "weapons".

Incorrect, it has pictures of two weapons it is not allowed to have.

A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

Not in the context of the BRB a picture can not be a model.

P.S. Moot not Mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

chapterhouse or other 3rd party models are strictly forbidden by the RAW.

The cardboard cutout is not a model, so it does not matter that it is from citadel.

My Stormraven box with a pic of the Stormraven on it is from citadel as well, but it is not a model either.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
It does have "weapons".

Incorrect, it has pictures of two weapons it is not allowed to have.

A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

Not in the context of the BRB a picture can not be a model.

P.S. Moot not Mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

chapterhouse or other 3rd party models are strictly forbidden by the RAW.

The cardboard cutout is not a model, so it does not matter that it is from citadel.

My Stormraven box with a pic of the Stormraven on it is from citadel as well, but it is not a model either.

To your points in order:

1. Incorrect on the weapons issue. See 3a-c
2. The only thing that matters in this case is the definition of a model. I read page 8 again and I would like to know how this is any different than your assertion on the "definition" of special characters. This (page 8) looks like your definition of fluff.
3. I never argued that a storm raven box is a miniature. I am arguing that a dread made of cardboard, by Citadel, for the use of being played in the game is. Let's start with this:
a. Is the cardboard cut out made by GW?
b. Was it, at that time, intended for use in the game?
c. If yes to b, then I contend that they made that a miniature version of a dread at that time. They defined it as a miniature by issuing that for game play.

If it was a miniature and made by GW then, by page 8's definition, it is a model. So to amend my first statement: please provide a page number with the definition of a miniature where it must be 3D.

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

So...this basically ends the entire discussion right here. Not a legal model.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

Definitely not. They are both part of GW and can both be described as Games Workshop miniatures, but Citadel is one brand and Forge World another, distinct brand. Forge World themselves distinguish between Citadel and FW miniatures in some of their descriptions. For example:

Forge World, in their description of the Space Marine Heavy Weapons Set wrote:Space Marine Heavy Weapons Set containing four resin heavy weapons: a Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon; 4 supporting and 4 counter-balancing arms, and backpacks. These can all be used with the full range of both Citadel and Forge World Space Marine kits.

FW do not produce citadel models, they are two different departments, but they most certainly do not produce citadel miniatures.

Games Workshop Group PLC

Games Workshop has expanded into several divisions/companies producing products related to the Warhammer universe.

Games Workshop now produces the tabletop wargames, Citadel miniatures, and the Specialist Games range.

Forge World makes complementary specialist resin miniatures and conversion kits. Forge World is also responsible for the Warhammer Historical line of historical wargames rules, including Warhammer Ancient Battles, all of which were previously published by as a component of Black Library.

BL Publishing is the fiction, board game and roleplaying game publishing arm of Games Workshop. They comprise several separate imprints; The Black Library, Black Flame and Solaris Books. Warp Artefacts used to produce merchandise based on Games Workshop's intellectual property; they are now folded into BLP as BL Merchandise

.[26]

As we can see forge world =/= citadel miniatures.

Of note Citadel does produce miniatures for game systems outside of games workshop, which technically would be legal use in 40k RAW-wise


the carbord does have thickness so you can draw along the edge of the cardboard from the gun barrel to a target, its obviously physically possible...and when I touch the cardboard it phhysically exists in the third dimension with us....

blaktoof wrote:
the carbord does have thickness so you can draw along the edge of the cardboard from the gun barrel to a target, its obviously physically possible...and when I touch the cardboard it phhysically exists in the third dimension with us....

Except the edge of the cardboard is not the gun barrel...

oddly im still able to draw a line from the gun barrel to a target...seems when it was used as a model in the boxed set GW produced for it people were also able to draw line of sight from its gun barrels to targets. Not sure how they managed that...oh wait you can see the gun barrel and draw a line from where it is on the model to the target - amazing!

blaktoof wrote:
oddly im still able to draw a line from the gun barrel to a target...seems when it was used as a model in the boxed set GW produced for it people were also able to draw line of sight from its gun barrels to targets. Not sure how they managed that...oh wait you can see the gun barrel and draw a line from where it is on the model to the target - amazing!

From the gun barrel to a target sure, but that is not what the rules ask for.

From the mounting along the barrel is what is required, and impossible to determine with the non model that is the cardboard cut out.

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

Can anyone of the "pro" side counter this?

blaktoof wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.

1) that only applies to models

2) And even with the assumption that "all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º." would not help, as you still need to draw Line of Sight down the barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do.

3) Not that the cutout is a model anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.

And even with the assumption that "all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º." would not help, as you still need to draw Line of Sight downthe barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do.

Obviously I am wrong and it is a model thank you blaktoof for being reasonable and showing me the error of my ways.

so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

blaktoof wrote:

Fluff statements do not equal rules?

Those are full and valid rules. Taken straight from the book the model came with.

Can you re-butt this or not?

 Sigvatr wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Fluff statements do not equal rules?

Those are full and valid rules. Taken straight from the book the model came with.

Can you re-butt this or not?

actually p4.5 are not pages that list any rules in that book...it lists the contents of the box

The rules do not begin until page 8 of that book, so you are quite wrong that those are rules.

It's GW directly stating that this is not a real model. Can't get any clearer than that.

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's GW directly stating that this is not a real model. Can't get any clearer than that.

unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They do so its not a substitute for a citadel model it does allow you to fight a game immediately using the dreadnaught rules, and you can buy metal model from citadel that is an ork dreadnaught.

However the rules do not begin until p.8 of that book, so that is not a rule. It also does not state it is not model, but rather that is it not a substitue for a citadel model which is a statement of editorial level and not a rule. This could mean that it is not a high quality model like the citadel model.

The interesting part of this which you did not bring up is that its not a citadel model. its just a model. The cardstock in the boxes and the rules were put out by GW publications which at the time was separate from citadel models, much like FW are not legal citadel models this is also not a legal citadel model for army selection purposes.

So no, its not okay to use just as FW is not okay to use being that they are not legal Citadel models, you are correct in that.

edit- just realized my witch elves which I use as dark eldar wyches are marauder witch elves so they are not legal citadel models, the sadness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

before your edit of the "new positions of the gun barrel"

it also doesn't say that anywhere in the RAW, which you obviously made up.

It's a substitute model. That's what they say. A substitute model isn't a real model by its very definition. And note that they even say no "real" substitute.

The FW is completely independant as GW explicitely states that they are to be used in standard 40k.

Can you quote where it says that the cutout isn't a substitute model?

can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Does forgeworld produce citadel miniatures? can you show that anywhere? please quotes.

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

hmm the complete sentence that says unambiguously that it is a model, which is before the rules page sadly along with the statement saying its not a substitute for a citadel model.

So yes its a model for the game.

is it as good as the citadel model? no.

I think the key word now is that the rules refer to miniatures being the physical objects, referred to in the rules as models. Model is a game term (different from the concept "scale model", but the rules presupposed that the game is played with miniatures.

As a model is inherently symbolic, the cardboard cutout could reasonable act as one. There's a long history of similar items in gaming.

A cardboard cutout is not a miniature, though. As its not a miniature, it's not really appropriate to be used in a game.

It's all academic of course. I can't see any ork player owning one of those, but not having an actual Deff Dredd mini.

blaktoof wrote:
...seems when it was used as a model in the boxed set GW produced for it people were also able to draw line of sight from its gun barrels to targets.

You didn't draw LOS along the gun barrels in 2nd edition. Dreadnoughts had a 90 degree fire arc to their front.

 insaniak wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
...seems when it was used as a model in the boxed set GW produced for it people were also able to draw line of sight from its gun barrels to targets.

You didn't draw LOS along the gun barrels in 2nd edition. Dreadnoughts had a 90 degree fire arc to their front.

True, but regardless if the barrels cannot swivel there is no requirement to draw LoS down them as you cannot do so. Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

blaktoof wrote:


unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They do so its not a substitute for a citadel model it does allow you to fight a game immediately using the dreadnaught rules, and you can buy metal model from citadel that is an ork dreadnaught.

However the rules do not begin until p.8 of that book, so that is not a rule. It also does not state it is not model, but rather that is it not a substitue for a citadel model which is a statement of editorial level and not a rule. This could mean that it is not a high quality model like the citadel model.

The interesting part of this which you did not bring up is that its not a citadel model. its just a model. The cardstock in the boxes and the rules were put out by GW publications which at the time was separate from citadel models, much like FW are not legal citadel models this is also not a legal citadel model for army selection purposes.

So no, its not okay to use just as FW is not okay to use being that they are not legal Citadel models, you are correct in that.

edit- just realized my witch elves which I use as dark eldar wyches are marauder witch elves so they are not legal citadel models, the sadness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

before your edit of the "new positions of the gun barrel"

it also doesn't say that anywhere in the RAW, which you obviously made up.

I never said that. The Edit was to separate the downthe in this sentence:

"as you still need to draw Line of Sight downthe barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do." (Me)

blaktoof wrote:


unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They also dont say that I cant place my models back on the table after they have been removed and use them again, but that doesn't mean I can do it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

It is not a model...

blaktoof wrote:
can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

The quote is right in the previous post. Re-read it.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Also answered above.

I could use Text-to-Speech if that would help you?

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

but you are 100% wrong, and it is a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

The quote is right in the previous post. Re-read it.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Also answered above.

I could use Text-to-Speech if that would help you?

did. you didnt.

fail.

blaktoof wrote:
True, but regardless if the barrels cannot swivel there is no requirement to draw LoS down them as you cannot do so. Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

The actual rule just allows you to pivot the weapon as if it was free to move. Although it's irrelevant to walkers, since they still have a defined fire arc to their front.


The bigger issues with using the cardboard dread are simply:
a) It's armed with weapons that the Ork Deffdredd doesn't have access to
and
b) It's not a model. It's a cardboard cutout

blaktoof wrote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

So since you claim it is a model you surely can produce proof of the profile yes?

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes." (Models and Units chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

blaktoof wrote:
You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

So you can not produce a profile for it?

Then it is not a model.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

So since you claim it is a model you surely can produce proof of the profile yes?

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes." (Models and Units chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

yep, it has a datacard from 2nd edition, when it was produced as a model.

Obviously the ork dreadnaught model no longer exists, as its now a "Deff Dread" and has a different profile, and different weapon options.

just like pulsa rokkits no longer exist, but they are models, as well as miniatures. The fact they do not have current rules does not make them, not models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

So regardless of model status the Cardboard cut out of Ork Dread from 2nd edition is not okay to use, as it has no current rules and you would not be able to shoot with it anyway.

i've stated about 3 times now in this thread that its not okay to use.

nkelsch wrote:
Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

I guess I'll just throw away these three Eldar Dreadnoughts I've got since no such thing exists, too.

blaktoof wrote:

yep, it has a datacard from 2nd edition, when it was produced as a model.

Obviously the ork dreadnaught model no longer exists, as its now a "Deff Dread" and has a different profile, and different weapon options.

just like pulsa rokkits no longer exist, but they are models, as well as miniatures. The fact they do not have current rules does not make them, not models.

So nothing current from 7th ed?

It was a model in 2nd, but it is no longer a model as it no longer has a profile.

you really are trying to say its not a model, even though it was produced as a model, because there are no current profiles for it?

theres a slew of models that no longer have rules for every faction. They are still all models. They just no longer have rules to play them.

If you like we could take the cardboard cut out, and use a pair of hobby knives produced by GW and cut out the lascannon and heavy bolter and glue on a plastic rokkit launcher and another dread claw and guess what now its a legit model in the current game. Making it a legitimate conversion of a model.

oh and I can aim down the gun barrel....but of course rokkits don't have barrels so I guess RAW you can't fire them..or any missile for that matter that's not enclosed in a barrel. Sorry manticores and deathstrikes...

blaktoof wrote:
you really are trying to say its not a model, even though it was produced as a model, because there are no current profiles for it?

It is no longer a model because "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."

The cardboard cutout does not have this and it not a model.

theres a slew of models that no longer have rules for every faction. They are still all models. They just no longer have rules to play them.

No, if they dont have rules they are no longer models. (as far as the 40k rules are concerned).

You can counts as a model with a profile, but since they do not have "a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." Then they are no longer a model.

If you like we could take the cardboard cut out, and use a pair of hobby knives produced by GW and cut out the lascannon and heavy bolter and glue on a plastic rokkit launcher and another dread claw and guess what now its a legit model in the current game. Making it a legitimate conversion of a model.

oh and I can aim down the gun barrel....but of course rokkits don't have barrels so I guess RAW you can't fire them..or any missile for that matter that's not enclosed in a barrel. Sorry manticores and deathstrikes...

Except conversions are not covered by the rules and that would need opponents permission to be considered a model.

What you mean to say is

"yes Blaktoof, It is a model, but it doesn't have any rules to play with"

as there is no quote in the rules you can supply that say "if it doesn't have rules it's not a model"

because you have made this up from the section models and units which states that the models used to play the game..

this means that models that are used to play the game have the following rules.

This does not mean if you do not have the following rules you are not a model.

Therefore the old stand-up card Dread model does not have those rules and cannot be used to play currently, similarily the old metal dread produced by citadel would not be valid for play for the same reason, it does not however state that they are not models.


40k 2nd edition rulebook quote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

and there is no section that says you need permission to use conversions.


There is a section that is titled "personalizing your miniatures" that mentions kitbashing and conversions and taking parts from one ...but nothing about needing permission. can you quote that somehow? They do describe taking parts from one GW kit and cutting off a gun or head and using parts from another. Using this statement from the rulebook we would be able to cut off the guns from the "Stand-up card dreadnaught model" GW words not mine, and glue some some klaws or big shootas in their place from another GW kit. Sounds like a proper conversion to me from what I am reading. Taking 1 model and combining it with another to make a conversion.

I'd say yes.

Not only because it's a GW release, but because it's AWESOME!!! So much nostalgia.

If you have one of these in usable condition I'd play you in a second.

blaktoof wrote:
What you mean to say is

"yes Blaktoof, It is a model, but it doesn't have any rules to play with"

No, what I mean to say is "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."

If something is claimed to be a model it will have "a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." and certainly someone can produce the current profile for such, or concede that it is not a model as far as the 7th ed rules are concerned.

as there is no quote in the rules you can supply that say "if it doesn't have rules it's not a model"

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.

Yes when you leave off the first part of the text that creates context it is possible to overreach greatly and twist it to say that "if the model doesn't have rules its not a model"

So it is a model, its not used to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 because it does not have its own characteristic profile

regardless.

If you take the cardboard model and cut out the guns with your official GW hobby tools that are not WYSIWYG and then put plastic guns in their place with your official GW hobby glue, you have an model that was an official model, is not currently WYSIWYG and has been converted to be WYSIWYG.

Your thoughts on that?

If something is claimed to be a model it will have "a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." and certainly someone can produce the current profile for such, or concede that it is not a model as far as the 7th ed rules are concerned.

so your saying


is not a model.

I would play against it, even though it is not a model and it is not WYSIWYG, without the modifications if the player were not trying to hide the thin part behind a blade of grass and claim that it is out of Line of Sight.

Same goes for a converted model, I would play against it but the same provisions apply.


P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

yeah :(

primarchs used to not be so tall.

blaktoof wrote:
is not a model.

As far as the rules governing the game are concerned, no.
Yes, it fits the normal English definition of a model. (un)Fortunately, 40k has re-defined what a model is.
Arguing using any other definition is simply incorrect as far as the actual rules go.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I
P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

Uh, I can see it...

I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules. Run him as a Wolf Lord with two Fenrisian Wolves and I'm fine. Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex. This is a fraggin' game! have some fun with it!

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...



Oh, well. Somehow I'll live.

On the RAW front, the damn cutout is made by GW and thus legit. Get over it.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules.

Which is exactly what DR said...

Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex.

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...

I would because it has nothing to do with GW or not. I don't even care a little bit.
As long as it's in line with the actual model and close to WYSIWYG I don't care. A cardboard standin isn't close to the actual model.

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

Uh, yeah it is. The thing is made by GW. It is meant to be a dreadnought. It is on the base provided by GW.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

Uh, yeah it is. The thing is made by GW. It is meant to be a dreadnought. It is on the base provided by GW.

It's not about not being a "perfect representation" - which is what you said (that you left out of your response).

It's the fact that it's nothing like what people are trying to use it as. Like - at all. Wrong weapons, it's 2 dimensional... the only redeeming feature is nostalgia and there's no reason to get in a tizzy over the rules if that's literally the only reason you want to field it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Wrong weapons.

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout.

Again, the thing is a GW creation on a GW base. The one provided. Fits the criteria.

Edit: Edition added.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wrong weapons.

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout.

Without conversion? Yeah, based solely on that. If you read my actual post, however, and not just your selective editing you'll note I had more than one objection to it.
It's almost like there's a huge difference between a 2d "model" and a 3d model in a game based on TLOS and distance in 3 dimensions. Who'da thunk it.

Again, the thing is a GW creation on a GW base. The one provided. Fits the criteria.

No, it doesn't. Seriously.

I think some people are a bit too super cereal about the game.

Ork armies usually contain plenty of cardboard, whats wrong with another piece?

Seriously.

Grats, guys, five pages and going strong. Ask yourself, which is more important, having fun or having accurate models?

RAW does not forbid this, why should you?

 don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

A small, 2D, cardboard cutout with nowhere to draw line of sight from, no weapons and no gun barrels to shoot from does not adequately represent a large, 3d, plastic model, which has all of the things required to play a standard game of Warhammer 40k.

"not just your selective editing"

It's not "selective editing", it's picking your argument apart. Your argument gets rid of ALL counts-as minis, and leaves only current "real" GW minis. Rule of cool.

By your rationale a great number of another poster on this thread's minis, which are all real GW minis on GW bases that were provided (I know this person IRL and I know his army and he knows what he's saying) would be invalid. No creativity whatsoever. Ever.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but it's a Games Workshop product on a Games Workshop base. The one provided. What we're disagreeing on is what constitutes a miniature. How 2D does something have to be to not be a miniature to you? This miniature is a three dimensional object. Just because it doesn't conform to your standards does not mean it is not a real GW product in three dimensions.

Please tell me, what constitutes a miniature to you?

Specifically.

If it's the number of dimensions an object exists in you've failed in your argument.

If it's weather or not a mini has the exact same weapons described in the codex (despite there being an equivalent in said codex), *the specific ones*, nobody who doesn't use an exact current mini in the GW product range (damn, some of my personal Space Wolves are out of date, guess I'm screwed) can enter a tournament.

Or even play the game.

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

Sorry, but if you debate these points you're just plain wrong.

Naw wrote:Ask yourself, which is more important, having fun or having accurate models?

What makes you think those two things are exclusive?

We're talking about a miniatures game. It shouldn't be too surprising that people would prefer to play with miniatures rather than cardboard cutouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

No, the point is that the 'dreadnought' in question is a piece of cardboard with a picture of a dreadnought on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout..

Yes. Just as all those 2nd Ed Blood Claws armed with power fist and are currently invalid. Just as the razorback with Las/plas was invalid for several editions.

Edition changes quite often require models to be either converted to remain current, retired, or counted as something else.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"not just your selective editing"

It's not "selective editing", it's picking your argument apart. Your argument gets rid of ALL counts-as minis, and leaves only current "real" GW minis. Rule of cool.

No, it doesn't. I even spelled it out for you. And it is selective editing as you only addressed a single opposition, not both.
Picking my argument apart would mean addressing all my points, not just one.

By your rationale a great number of another poster on this thread's minis, which are all real GW minis on GW bases that were provided (I know this person IRL and I know his army and he knows what he's saying) would be invalid. No creativity whatsoever. Ever.

If you truly think that, you've literally not read my posts. At all. Please do so.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but it's a Games Workshop product on a Games Workshop base. The one provided. What we're disagreeing on is what constitutes a miniature. How 2D does something have to be to not be a miniature to you? This miniature is a three dimensional object. Just because it doesn't conform to your standards does not mean it is not a real GW product in three dimensions.

Please tell me, what constitutes a miniature to you?

Not a single piece of cardboard.

If it's the number of dimensions an object exists in you've failed in your argument.

Why, exactly?

If it's weather or not a mini has the exact same weapons described in the codex (despite there being an equivalent in said codex), *the specific ones*, nobody who doesn't use an exact current mini in the GW product range (damn, some of my personal Space Wolves are out of date, guess I'm screwed) can enter a tournament.

Why yes, WYSIWYG is important. I'm not the only one who thinks so. I'm surprised you're so shocked about it.

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

It is? I mean - sure it exists so it's technically a 3dimensional object, the same way a square on a piece of paper is a 3 dimensional object.
To most people, pictures on a piece of paper aren't 3 dimensional.

Sorry, but if you debate these points you're just plain wrong.

Yeah, if you just approach discussions with the viewpoint that you're correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong it's perfectly normal.

I would prefer not, but it is official and totally legal.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I
P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

Uh, I can see it...

I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules. Run him as a Wolf Lord with two Fenrisian Wolves and I'm fine. Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex. This is a fraggin' game! have some fun with it!

1) I couldn't see it, the page opened had a "403 Forbidden" error.

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...

Spoiler:

Oh, well. Somehow I'll live.

Why would you think I would not play against your "Tau army"?

Did you miss that I would play against the cardboard cutout if it was a counts as and they were liberal on my units drawing Line of Sight to the cardboard?

On the RAW front, the damn cutout is made by GW and thus legit. Get over it.

No, it really is not "legit" and there is nothing to get over.

It is not a model as 40k defines it as "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes." (Models and Units chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

If you can not produce a profile for it, then it is not a model.

 PhillyT wrote:
I would prefer not, but it is official and totally legal.

It's legal to use as part of the scenario it came with, not in regular play, as GW themselves said that it is not a "real substitute".

 solkan wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Please provide the evidence that the cardboard cutout was released as a model.

You still have the 2nd edition starter box contents handy, right, to prove that you have the authentic cardboard dreadnought?

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of that in its entirety? I don't think people are reading the full thread.

"Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model" yes it's made by GW but they are still claiming it is not a Citadel model. It most surely is not fluff. I'm sure gw is just giving us permission to use it only for the demo but I don't have the thing to check.

The whole LOS and weapons argument is going off on a tangent and is another can of worms.

How i would play? I'd still play it for giggles. But word of god is it isn't a "real substitute for a Citadel model". It just isn't a real boy just a wooden one

Oberron wrote:
"Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model" yes it's made by GW but they are still claiming it is not a Citadel model. It most surely is not fluff. I'm sure gw is just giving us permission to use it only for the demo but I don't have the thing to check.

The whole LOS and weapons argument is going off on a tangent and is another can of worms.

How i would play? I'd still play it for giggles. But word of god is it isn't a "real substitute for a Citadel model". It just isn't a real boy just a wooden one

This 'model' is a playing piece to be used in a single scenario, and not a 'model' for ongoing games. It was intended to make that one game better than the actual models in the box would have.

But, I'd play against it, if the person using it had no actual Dreadnought models.
It is a Counts-As, and not a great one at that.

This is now my favorite thread.

Man, this became SO HEATED over such a non-issue.

Why did you ask the internet? You don't play against the internet. You don't need their permission. When you ask the internet anything, you get:

"Yes"
"no"
"lol"
"you suck"
"I'm hungry"
"you're an idiot for thinking whatever it was you're thinking"
"first!"
"oops not first, I was too slow"
"I was slow once"
"you're still slow"
"BURRRRRRRRNNNNNN!!!!"
"fire is afraid chuck norris will burn IT"


Seriously. Ask your gaming group, the guys you play against. We're no help.

For what it's worth (and it's worth nothing), I wouldn't mind it.

If, however, you had like nine of the things and it seemed pretty apparent you were printing them out for your own use instead of buying dreads and instead of using ye olde 2nd edition model for nostalgia, then I would have a problem.

 Spellbound wrote:
Man, this became SO HEATED over such a non-issue.

This. Now how about a mod lock this?

I'm surprised I kind of just asked it as a joke. I didn't think it'd have like 5 pages of heated debate over it.

It wasn't particularly 'heated'... But either way we appear to be about done here.