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.

Okay, I'd you're going To go for permissive ruleset, show with the rules that you can assemble your citadel minis or paint them. There is just as much permission for that as conversion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Yeah? try that argument in any other thread, I dare you. This forum lives and dies on RAW to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Er... you realise that I'm one of the people who decides what is and isn't appropriate for the forum, right? I've been applying that argument to the forums for several years now... and for most posters, it isn't a problem.

I lol'd. I wanted to say this earlier but figured you didn't need defending. Glad I waited.

insaniak wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Yeah? try that argument in any other thread, I dare you. This forum lives and dies on RAW to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Er... you realise that I'm one of the people who decides what is and isn't appropriate for the forum, right? I've been applying that argument to the forums for several years now... and for most posters, it isn't a problem.

Well, I will broach this tactfully as you have already decide to lean on your authority and simply state, I do have a problem with it as it relies on your flawed human opinion.

Red Corsair wrote:
Your argument has been used to death, it falls flat because that heavy bolter was designed with a marine in mind. That power axe you are adding to your DCA, was it from some DCA kit I haven't seen? This is why it's best to agree to disagree until FAQ'd

This may sound stupid but the space marines are the most popular army, they get a lot of attention. Maybe their models follow the rules so closely is that their models aren't from 3rd ed?
You cannot use that as an analogous example, if that were true then we could never use anything that was from an older model as they are not designed by Jes et al for the current rules.

pretre wrote:Okay, I'd you're going To go for permissive ruleset, show with the rules that you can assemble your citadel minis or paint them. There is just as much permission for that as conversion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:Yeah? try that argument in any other thread, I dare you. This forum lives and dies on RAW to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Er... you realise that I'm one of the people who decides what is and isn't appropriate for the forum, right? I've been applying that argument to the forums for several years now... and for most posters, it isn't a problem.

I lol'd. I wanted to say this earlier but figured you didn't need defending. Glad I waited.

Should have waited indefinitely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:
Your argument has been used to death, it falls flat because that heavy bolter was designed with a marine in mind. That power axe you are adding to your DCA, was it from some DCA kit I haven't seen? This is why it's best to agree to disagree until FAQ'd

This may sound stupid but the space marines are the most popular army, they get a lot of attention. Maybe their models follow the rules so closely is that their models aren't from 3rd ed?
You cannot use that as an analogous example, if that were true then we could never use anything that was from an older model as they are not designed by Jes et al for the current rules.

And why can't I use it as an example if insaniak already has?

Cos it doesn't fall on your side of the debate. Using parts from other sources to make a model you want, which your model didn't come with or the box the squad you are making came with, even though the wargear option is in the codex is what we are arguing for.
You can't have it both ways, either you never get a HB in the tac squads or we get to make some cool models with different power weapons depending on how we feel. And how we feel can be aesthetically or meta game motivated.

liturgies of blood wrote:Cos it doesn't fall on your side of the debate.

How so? If anything it favors my side, it would imply that marines are intended to have said options as their kits were made for it. You know, as apposed to those DCA that are finecrap and weren't made with the same intent.



At any rate, as has been stated by myself and others this one needs to be settled at the table on a case by case basis or by local TO's. My opinion and others really don't matter when applied to the general community. At least in regards to reaching one consensus.

Dca didn't start as fine cast. How do you knew whether they were made with the intent to convert or not 9 years ago?

When they were released their codex had several pages on how to convert your own dca and crusaders and other henchmen.

Red Corsair wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Cos it doesn't fall on your side of the debate.

How so? If anything it favors my side, it would imply that marines are intended to have said options as their kits were made for it. You know, as apposed to those DCA that are finecrap and weren't made with the same intent.

You were the one who wanted to stick to what was explicictly allowed in the rules, so you cannot now start guesings the designer intent. There is no rule allowing you to model your tactical marines with a heavy bolter.

TBH they were crap models then and they still are now.

There are a number of people that I would probably never play a game with in this thread...

Crimson wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Cos it doesn't fall on your side of the debate.

How so? If anything it favors my side, it would imply that marines are intended to have said options as their kits were made for it. You know, as apposed to those DCA that are finecrap and weren't made with the same intent.

You were the one who wanted to stick to what was explicictly allowed in the rules, so you cannot now start guesings the designer intent. There is no rule allowing you to model your tactical marines with a heavy bolter.

Wrong, I restated Nos side of the argument to couple with your side to reinforce the conclusion that this is not going to be settled here. I initially said it needs to be settled on a case to case basis because I don't think either side has a pair of legs to stand on. Both arguments open the door for in game problems. I also gave my personal opinion which pretre drew conclusions from and ascertained I must have implied he was shady. So this mess has drawn out for another page or so again using the same tired arguments. Oh and a MOD decided to make an argument from authority which makes me lol pretre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:There are a number of people that I would probably never play a game with in this thread...

Hey look another facetious poster. Let me try.

Most people won't play most people from this thread do to logistic alone

No, after several regular posters pointed it out, a MOD decided to point out your rediculous argument.

Except he didn't. He made an argument from authority by saying his word was true because he is and has been a MOD for a while. This is not only a logical fallacy but completely inappropriate, his job as MOD isn't to settle rules deputes, simply user disputes or else this forum needs to be called insaniak makes da call or MOD makes da call.

He only went to authority when you tried to tell him you knew the rules and intent of the subforum more than he did. In the case of forum intent, the mod would have insight.

pretre wrote:He only went to authority when you tried to tell him you knew the rules and intent of the subforum more than he did. In the case of forum intent, the mod would have insight.

When did I say I knew better then he did? I think maybe he jumped to that conclusion as I was pointing out that RAW caries more weight on the subforums then his warm feelings on the matter. I m sure he knows the rules very well.

When you dared him to try that argument in another thread maybe?

No, you said that YMDC is all about RAW and discussion of intent has no place here.

He reminded you that he has been moderating this forum longer than you've been a member and that your assertion is false.

pretre wrote:When you dared him to try that argument in another thread maybe?

Yea, and I stand by it. RAW means way more to me then his opinions. He then used his MOD position as a crutch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BarBoBot wrote:No, you said that YMDC is all about RAW and discussion of intent has no place here.

He reminded you that he has been moderating this forum longer than you've been a member and that your assertion is false.

Actually that isn't verbatim at all. Also notice a few posts up when someone said I have no idea on intent and it has no place. Yea about that.

Red Corsair wrote:Yea, and I stand by it. RAW means way more to me then his opinions. He then used his MOD position as a crutch.

If that's what you think, you misunderstood what I said.

I pointed out my mod position as evidence that in a disagreement over what is a permissible argument in YMDC, my opinion is going to weigh more than yours. I wasn't claiming that my argument was correct because I am a mod. I was disputing your claim that YMDC is only here for RAW discussion.

I did not, and would never, suggest that being a mod makes any rules argument of mine any more correct., since my position as a mod has no bearing on my knowledge or understanding of the rules of Warhammer 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You know, as apposed to those DCA that are finecrap and weren't made with the same intent.

They weren't Finecast when they were made... and in fact, the model with the two swords was no more legal, weapons-wise, when they were made than it is now.

The difference is simply that when they were made, that wasn't a big deal. Now, when we have to look at the model to determine what it is carrying, the weapons they have on hand are more important. So what do we do if conversions aren't allowed, but the model GW provides isn't actually representative of what it is supposed to be?

Grrr what a bloody mess this thread is!

Quickly unban Gwar! and solve this crisis!

LunaHound wrote:Grrr what a bloody mess this thread is!

Quickly unban Gwar! and solve this crisis!

I think Red Corsair is already doing a pretty good job of following in GWAR's "RAW or die!" footsteps already...

OT - From what I can tell, the problem lies with people viewing "the model" with regards to determining the type of weapon as either "the model that is intended to be on the table" and "the model that is actually on the table."

In my opinion, what *should* be there is a fruitless endeavor. Determine what the actual model on the table is holding. If the rules don't specify anything other than "power weapon" then it's academic to argue why you should or should not have an axe, sword, or halberd. You can figure out afterwards if the person is inappropriately MFA and act accordingly (don't play him, try to show him his folly, etc.)

I'll admit that's moving into the RAI realm, but when RAW becomes nonsensical, that's the only logical course of action.

DoW

The whole problem I see with one side saying that "there are no rules allowing you to use converted models" is that there (at least in my opinion) actually is a rule that states that. Look at page 2, and the very first sentence

The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40k are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow.

We have permission to use Citadel miniatures. Does the rule specifically state that only "properly assembled" miniatures may be used? Nope. Does the rule say that only stock miniatures must be used? Again, nope. To answer those that say "we are given instructions", let me ask this, is there a rule saying we must follow instructions in the construction of citadel miniatures? So long as the model itself is a "Citadel Miniature" it is viable for play. That means if we want to take parts from a second box of Citadel Miniatures and kit bash the model, we can because it is still a citadel miniature (albeit with additional parts). This is a case where we have permission to do something, and nothing prevents an outside conversion from being excluded. The rules say we can, and there is no qualifying statement that limits the type of citadel miniatures. It's just like a blast marker scattering into close combat, we have permission to play the final location of the blast marker, and nothing prevents it from scattering into close combat.

That side is choosing a narrowly defined view on conversions, a narrowly defined view that is not supported by the rules. Remember, the point of the game is to have fun. If people have fun creating custom models from preexisting citadel miniatures, then they are free to field those miniatures on the tabletop.

Unless, of course, their opponents disagree.

Which is the xrux of the matter - some see it as MFA, some don't.

Edit: insaniak, the point of the legality of conversions discussion was to show that, given GW made a model-first decision wrt power weapons, the base weapons available to that model have been given importance. Nothing in the power weapon rules allows you to make up whatever weapon you want.

Essentially if you convert, are you gaining an advantage not warranted? Given the model first decision by GW, a unique one, arguing you have carte Blanche to have any weapons you like has no support, and is more likely to be see as MFA - and with some justification.

The rules never say you can have ANY weapon, just to use the model as the basis. If a model comes with power swords, where is your permission to give them axes instead?

nosferatu1001 wrote: the one with a power weapon. It may have two listed as wargear, but there is no requirement for both to be shown

Wow....
Ahem incoming

So since nothing has to be modeled, I just wont glue them onto the model. Now I can't look to see what power weapon they have so I get schrodingers power weapon that will change every turn. It either has to be moedled, or it cna be converted, stop changing your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Essentially if you convert, are you gaining an advantage not warranted? Given the model first decision by GW, a unique one, arguing you have carte Blanche to have any weapons you like has no support, and is more likely to be see as MFA - and with some justification.

The problem with that line of thought, you're applying an abstract concept to the game. Modelling for advantage is no longer mentioned in the rules, thus there is no support for preventing me from altering the model however I want. It has no definable qualities unlike it did in 5th edition, and as such would technically make the whole thing moot since there is no MFA to speak of and the OP's question revolves specifically around that abstract quality.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules never say you can have ANY weapon, just to use the model as the basis. If a model comes with power swords, where is your permission to give them axes instead?

Remember, you're trying to apply the rules to something there are absolutely no rules about. There are no rules about constructing models, if your magically seeing something the rest of us aren't, please reference the page number where we can find the rule, models cannot be converted. Until we get that page reference we as modellers can continue to modify and change the the models to our hearts content, because in the end they are still a Citadel miniature. The rules only cover the in game; building, painting, sculpting, modelling, etc. they all happen outside of the game. Don't apply rules when they do not apply, and they only apply in game. The only rule that would ever apply in the situation we are discussing, is it a Citadel Miniature? Then it's legal for play.

To misquote a wise man, "RAW is the beginning of wisdom, not the end".

d-usa wrote:There are a number of people that I would probably never play a game with in this thread...

Wecome to YMDC!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules never say you can have ANY weapon, just to use the model as the basis.

And that's where you're going to continue to get disagreement, because to those arguing for being able to swap weapons, all that the rule about looking at the model is doing is telling you that where the weapon it's not defined in the rules, you just fall back on WYSIWYG.

Because the alternative, that we're only supposed to use the weapons that come in the same package as the model regardless of what options the model may have, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

Testify wrote:

d-usa wrote:There are a number of people that I would probably never play a game with in this thread...

Wecome to YMDC!

There's a number of people who are jumping to the conclusion that people who discuss RAW must always play that way and cannot vary.

Those people are wrong.

Not sure who your siding with rigeld, but it dosent really matter. What this is appearing to me, is that Nos is saying that by RAW (or to be more precise, because it isint written) Conversions are illegal and that means you are stuck with the components GW gives you and left to no creativity. We are using argumentum ad absurdum to show that not everything is listed as a rule, especially when it takes place in the HOBBY part of the game. This brings us to point 2, since there is no rule for converison or even building models, do we play with unassebled miniatures? Or do we actually think and fall back on either common sense or the hobby section.