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

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Well, that wasnt messy at all (sarcasm) but quick for a YMDC argument.... I mean discussion. I think the overall concensus is they it is not MFA and only modeling for wargear

And always check with your TO before doing anything.

FWIW, the next event I'm going to is allowing it. If I were to go to Nos's event (not sure where you are at Nos), I would respect his decision as it is his event (even if I don't agree with it) and play them as swords or bring a different army.

Nos, perhaps I'm blind. But are you avoiding my question?

I'll repeat it again.

Do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad? If so, why?

WhoopieMonster wrote:Nos, perhaps I'm blind. But are you avoiding my question?

I'll repeat it again.

Do you accept that I can use Devastator parts to build the Heavy Weapons for my Tactical Squad? If so, why?

He has not answered you directly, but he has answered the question. Check back to his most recent response on modelling available options using other kits.

I believe the answer was 'With Opponent Permission'.

Technically? Yes, to the main question. You have no rules permission to change the weapon, but do not need explicit permission from GW to change it if you want to do so - just to play with it you now have a non-citadel mini, and thus need opponents permission. In a pick up game - easily done. In a tournament - ask the TO

Which is the entire point of this.

The STOCK rule is that you use the Citadel Miniature, and are not given allowance to alter said miniature in any way. So, anytime you do so - as has been pointed out all through these modelling threads - you risk rejection by opponents, and they would have a rules justification for doing so.

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Are you breaking the same rule? Yes. Does GW equate them? Yes, in so much as it is binary - rule broken or rule not broken. That isnt my assessment of equivalency, but GWs. I said that in terms of degrees would one be considered a reasonable conversion and one wouldnt? Yes. You just decided to ignore that, and create a strawman argument.

I expected better of you.

Green is best - you've missed that DCA get TWO POWER WEAPONS. As in, they can take BOTH a sword AND an Axe. Meaning they get to strike at I6 S4 AP3 against MEQ or worse, and still get to hit at AP2 against TEQs. Thus they suffer absolutely no disadvantage

Vindicare - the consensus amongst those not following the rules is - do wnat you want. Amongst those who follow the rules, it is MFA and, as a conversion that is MFA is unlikely to pass in many big tournaments.

Those who follow your viewpoint on the rules. an 80%+ poll shows that the majority is not in your favor, not that it matters in YMDC.

Thanks pretre.

Apologies NOS. I did read your post. But I wanted clarification if you viewed multipart plastic kits as == to Finecast or metal minatures when it comes to changing their equipment.

Most would view chopping an already cast part of a minature off and then adding a different, but allowed by wargear, weapon as a conversion. I personally would not call a Heavy Bolter Tactical Marine a conversion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Same thing. Breaking the same rule. I read it fine. Matters of degree are really irrelevant. Is it allowed or isn't it is what I'm talking about.

You are saying that, from a rules standpoint, changing a combi-melta to a combi-flamer is the same as making a 12" front BW, which is the same as modelling Power Axe / Power Sword on a DCA. I disagree.

Vindicare - the consensus amongst those not following the rules is - do wnat you want. Amongst those who follow the rules, it is MFA and, as a conversion that is MFA is unlikely to pass in many big tournaments.

You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

Claiming that the hobby section in the official rulebook isn't part of the rules is one of the silliest things I have ever heard here.

You can't play the game without building the models..... Building the models is not part of the gameplay rules, and as such has no place in the rules of gameplay section.

They are covered in the RELEVANT section aptly named "The hobby"

"The Hobby" is located in the official rulebook, and it shows in detail how to assemble citadel models. The rules of gameplay are irrelevant if you don't have assembled models.

Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

From a HWYPI side - i would never model for advantage in taking away any and all drawbacks to the DCA's attacks, and would prefer not to play against people who would exploit a modelling conversion to give them an ingame advantage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

But you haven't. The only rule you have shown to 'support' your claim is the rule on page 2 saying you need to play with citadel miniatures. You have then extrapolated from that to say that you cannot modify them in any way. You have not provided any proof that you can or cannot modify, assemble or paint Citadel miniatures without changing them from Citadel miniatures to this category you created of 'non-citadel miniatures'.

Provide some rules quotes.

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:It's not a strawman. You said that modifying your model in any way is the same as the classic MFA scenarios. Look at your own post.

No, I said it is breaking the same rule, not that it is the same. Read my post again, just a little more carefully this time.

Same thing. Breaking the same rule. I read it fine. Matters of degree are really irrelevant. Is it allowed or isn't it is what I'm talking about.

You are saying that, from a rules standpoint, changing a combi-melta to a combi-flamer is the same as making a 12" front BW, which is the same as modelling Power Axe / Power Sword on a DCA. I disagree.

With no rules basis for it. Please follow the tenets of this forum and provide a page and paragraph supprting why you disagree that a conversion breaks the rules which do not give permission to allow conversions, or state that this is simply "opinion" and has no rules basis.

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given I am on the only side to supply actual rules, and the I can convert models to look however I like including modelling for advantage side havent, breaking the tenets of this site multiple times, the poll is fairly irrelevant from a YMDC rules perspective.

But you haven't. The only rule you have shown to 'support' your claim is the rule on page 2 saying you need to play with citadel miniatures. You have then extrapolated from that to say that you cannot modify them in any way. You have not provided any proof that you can or cannot modify, assemble or paint Citadel miniatures without changing them from Citadel miniatures to this category you created of 'non-citadel miniatures'.

Provide some rules quotes.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Saying that swapping a weapon of a Citadel Miniature to a weapon from another Citadel Miniature makes the end result not to be a Citadel Miniature is absurd, and Nosferatu's whole reasoning is based on that. It is ludicrous notion with no RAW or RAI support. This should be clear to anyone.

Citadel Miniatures are often multipart kits that are specificly designed so that that you can easily swap parts between the kits. Doing so does not cause them to stop being Citadel Miniatures.

Crimson wrote:Saying that sqapping a weapon of a Citadel Miniature to a weapon from another Citadel Miniature makes the end result not to be a Citadel Miniature is absurd, and Nosferatu's whole reasoning is based on that. It is ludicrous notion with no RAW or RAI support. This should be clear to anyone.

Then provide a rule. Just one.

Crimson wrote:Citadel Miniatures are often multipart kits that are specificly designed so that that you can easily swap parts between the kits. Doing so does not cause them to stop being Citadel Miniatures.

DCA do not have any Axes made for the CItadel Miniature Death Cult Assassin miniature. Are you saying that putting an Axe on the model means it is still the same miniature sold by Citadel Miniatures? That is patently absurd

I got it, Nos is a member of the tech cult of mars. By converting the models we have angered their model spirit and the omnissiah (jes goodwin) will strike us down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.

Please provide a page reference, in the rules, that defines assembly of Citadel Miniatures. You have not.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing assembly, or concede you have no permission to assemble a model.

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Yes, if I take a citadel miniature and convert it with citadel parts, it is still a citadel miniature.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to assemble your model, then you have conceded the argument.

Or, perhaps, just a reasonable player who doesnt like converting models to gain an advantage?

You need to take the rulebook as a whole. The game is meant to be played by human beings, not autistic robots*. You need to assemble your models in order to play, and there's a section in the book which tells you how to do that. This same section also instructs how to convert models. Conversions are an intended part of the game.

(* No offence to autists or robots intended)

pretre wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

pretre wrote:
You have yet to provide a rule showing that conversion or assembly is allowed. So there is no clear 'some folks follow the rules'. Right now, it is unclear what the rules for conversion or assembly are.

There are no rules allowing conversion - or at least despite asking you have been unable to provide any
GW have stated you use citadel miniatures. Citadel Miniatures have defined assembly. Try again.

Please provide a page reference, in the rules, that defines assembly of Citadel Miniatures. You have not.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing conversions, or concede you have no permission to convert a model.

Permissive ruleset. Provide a rule allowing assembly, or concede you have no permission to assemble a model.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:

Are you saying that a converted Citadel Miniature is still a Citadel Miniature? You do realise how absurd an argument that is? If I take {A} and add {B} to it, is it still {A}? "non-citadel miniature" is simply short hand for "this isnt a model sold by Citadel Miniatures and therefore cannot fit the requirement of being a Citadel Miniture"

Yes, if I take a citadel miniature and convert it with citadel parts, it is still a citadel miniature.

So, if you take a CM DCA, and convert it with a CM Power Axe, it is still the same CM DCA sold by GW? How about I take a DCA and add 2 arms to itm both from citadel kits. Is it still a CM DCA?

Cant tell if you are being facetious or serious. I almost want you to be facetious,as annoying as that is all through this thread.

pretre wrote:

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to convert your model to be whatever you like, then you have conceded the argument.

Again, permissive ruleset. If you fail to AGAIN provide ANY SINGLE RULE allowing you to assemble your model, then you have conceded the argument.

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

I accept your concession. Once you can argue non-facetiously, i will again point you to the fact that GW have defined CM as the miniatures we use, therefore how they define models shoudl be assembled, and that they are to be assembled to form a miniature, IS the rules in this area

However you cannot find a rule allowing you to convert those CM Minatures to represent anything other than the options supplied


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
You need to take the rulebook as a whole. The game is meant to be played by human beings, not autistic robots*. You need to assemble your models in order to play, and there's a section in the book which tells you how to do that. This same section also instructs how to convert models. Conversions are an intended part of the game.

(* No offence to autists or robots intended)

That would be the section entitled "the hobby", as opposed to that section called "the rules"

Or are you saying that the hobby section contains rules? Despite the specific "RULES" section existing?

DeathReaper wrote:MFA is Modelling to take advantage rules that were not intended to work in that way with your conversion. Be it a Different LoS on your vehicle's guns, a Smaller Profile than similar models to gain cover benefits, or hanging a chapter banner off of a Stormraven that is so bit it covers the rest of your army, and you claim the opponent does not have LoS to the models behind the banner.

Swapping a Tac Squad Sergeant's weapon for a Power Fist is legal and NOT MFA.

It is simply utilizing the options available to the army list.

Is your definition of MFA in the rulebook then? Seems like you're presenting it as fact and not opinion.

A literal definition of MFA disagrees with your interpretation. Your example of swapping a PF for a PS on a Sergeant is not relevant since it clearly indicates in the army section how this is accomplished (points cost, replacement, etc.)

The DCA example is much more nebulous as it doesn't define the weapons used. There are no 'options', as you put it, in the army list, merely that it does not specify the particular type. That is why it's appropriate MFA, rather than inappropriate MFA, but still very clearly an advantage gained from actively changing the model.

DoW

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing conversion?"

Do you disagree?

So your answer is "no, I cannot provide a rule allowing assembly?"

Do you disagree?

pretre wrote:So, if you take a CM DCA, and convert it with a CM Power Axe, it is still the same CM DCA sold by GW?

No, but it is still a citadel miniature.

How about I take a DCA and add 2 arms to itm both from citadel kits. Is it still a CM DCA?

Yep.

I accept your concession. I will again point you to the fact that the definition of assembly for Citadel miniatures is not contained in the rules section, but in the hobby section. The same place that conversion is defined/described.

However, you cannot find a rule allowing you to assemble those CM Minatures within the RULES section.

Just want to make a note here. Some modifications are forced modifications. As in if you want the legal option, you have to convert.

Dreads with twin-linked autocannons. If you want to take this type of dread, which is a legal dread in all marine codexes, then you have to convert. If not, then you are not playing WYSIWYG but rather, count as.

Combi-weapons? Most kits don't come with that option (or they don't come with enough of those options) so you have to convert if you want to, say, take a unit of 10 sternguards with combi-weapons.

Same with sergeants with thunderhammers and other such models. If the model can legally take a wargear option in its codex but the kit does not come with that model option (or not enough), then you are forced to convert to make the model WYSIWYG legal.


Ok, carry on with the rules discussion.

jy2 wrote:Just want to make a note here. Some modifications are forced modifications. As in if you want the legal option, you have to convert.

Right, but the opposing argument goes that there is no permission in the rules to create any of those conversions.

I agree that there is no permission in the RULES section of the Rulebook to paint, assemble or convert your minis. I disagree that the Hobby section is completely irrelevant in this discussion and feel that it shows the 'rules' for assembly, conversion, painting and use of Citadel Miniatures.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That would be the section entitled "the hobby", as opposed to that section called "the rules"

Or are you saying that the hobby section contains rules? Despite the specific "RULES" section existing?

The hobby section contains instructions relating to how to play the game.

You are correct that the rules section says nothing about conversions and it does not say anyting about assembling your models either.

You seem to agree that we need assembled Citadel Miniatures in order to play. However, the rules section of the book does not tell us how these mystrious assembled Citadel Miniatures come into being. At this point you have two options. One is to conclude that an error has accured and the game cannot proceed. Rules on assembling models cannot be found. Other is to refer to the hobby section of the book, which tells you how to assemble your models. Incidentally it also tells how to convert them. I cannot see how logically any other options are possible.

Crimson wrote:You seem to agree that we need assembled Citadel Miniatures in order to play. However, the rules section of the book does not tell us how these mystrious assembled Citadel Miniatures come into being. At this point you have two options. One is to conclude that an error has accured and the game cannot proceed. Rules on assembling models cannot be found. Other is to refer to the hobby section of the book, which tells you how to assemble your models. Incidentally it also tells how to conver them. I annot see how logically any other options are possible.

Well said, Crimson.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, for the final time - can people stop creating strawman arguments? It gets really, really tiresome to argue against.. I didnt say you couldnt model them so they are correct as per the supplied model - which is one fitted with swords/ What you cannot do is claim that an Axe is wysiwyg, because the supplied model never comes with an axe.

And this is where I disagree! Just because the box doesn't come with an axe doesn't mean you can't have an axe by the rules. The rules say you can have 2 power weapons. You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls. In order to by WYSIWYG, you need to model them as such. I would even support you having one sword and one axe, although I can see where people might cringe at that. But hey...the rules say "power weapon" and the guy IS an assassin. If you want to be technical about using "Citadel Miniatures" then you need to use a citadel miniature bit to do the kit bash. It doesn't say you have to use the model straight out of the box.

Grugknuckle wrote: You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls

No. Wrong. The rules DO NOT say that. The rules say that, if you have no listed type, look at the model

It does NOT say you can make the model look however you like. If it does do that, please provide an actual rule.

The central problem of the discussion is that Nos does not feel that the Hobby section is relevant to the argument.

Fact: There are no rules/guidelines/instructions for assembly, painting or conversion in the Rules section.

Fact: There are rules/guidelines/instructions for assembly, painting or conversion in the Hobby section.

My Conclusion: The Hobby section of the Rulebook may be intended to show us how to assemble, paint and convert our miniatures in a manner consistent with the rules.

Redbeard wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Who said anything about restricting an opponent. I believe that the sportsmanlike approach to questions like these is to take the more conservative approach until given explicit go-ahead by GW.

Nos insists that death cult assasins can only have power swords because that's what the box comes with. IMO, this is restricting your opponent (if he brought a DCA modeled with a power weapon other than a sword of course.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote: even citadel glue to ensure it's cool.

lol

Uh oh, I used milliput instead of green-stuff. Is my stuff still tournament legal? I used sand from the hardware store to base my mini's instead of Citadel texture paint. Darn, I'm using Vallejo paint. I guess I'm going to get disqualified at the GT.

Seriously. I'm with liturgies of blood. What's the problem?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote: You are free to choose two swords or two axes or two mauls

No. Wrong. The rules DO NOT say that. The rules say that, if you have no listed type, look at the model

It does NOT say you can make the model look however you like. If it does do that, please provide an actual rule.

No. I'm right. If I build the model with two axes, it will have two axes when you look at it. They are power weapons! You get to pick which.

And besides, no matter how you choose to do it either option is still weaker than the 5th edition, "Ignores Armor Saves". So what is the big deal?

Grugknuckle wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Wow. If the only way to win is for you to a take narrow rules interpretation in order to restrict the way that your opponent plays with his PLASTIC TOY SOILDERS, I think you've missed the point.

Who said anything about restricting an opponent. I believe that the sportsmanlike approach to questions like these is to take the more conservative approach until given explicit go-ahead by GW.

Nos insists that death cult assasins can only have power swords because that's what the box comes with. IMO, this is restricting your opponent (if he brought a DCA modeled with a power weapon other than a sword of course.)

Because this is what GW has shown us how they seem to be interpreting it with the LYNCHGUARD change. If they intended that anymodel with a powerweapon may have any weapon as valid weapon options, they could have said that but they didn't. You don't have a powerweapon of your choice, you have a powerweapon of what the model comes with, which is SWORDS for LYCHGUARD and SWORDS for DCA. It is IMPLIED we have the freedom to modify models to CHOOSE what to give them so by time the rule for pwoer weapons kick in, you have a mace or axe or whatever. Nothing says it is a valid weapon option where a DCA may take a power sword or power axe or powermaul. It doesn't have those weapon options... Those are implied NON-rules relying on converting a model.

So for now: Your model better be WYSIWYG if you intend to claim these different powerweapons, no proxies... and you better prepare to have your models invalidated by an FAQ, Digital update or whatever at any time.

People are complaining about the big bad DCA's bringing 2 diffrent types of power weapons to the field so that they are prepared for any circumstance. Thats what this appears to really boil down to.

And before Nos says "Well now since they have an axe and a sword they have no weakness" Wrong. Sword is AP3 meaning TDA is still valid against hem. Axe drops you to I1 so you strike after models in TDA. Weakness and balance found.