| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/19 22:07:31
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Battleship Captain
Oregon
|
Is there any reason a Defiler couldn't be used as a Soulgrinder and vice versa? I want to bulletproof myself for any potential rule lawyering or tournament whining by asking beforehanda.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/19 22:12:03
Subject: Re:Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Sure, it could be disallowed on the basis that separate models exist for the two units and there's no reason to let you substitute one for the other, especially if the model in question is stock.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/19 22:54:53
Subject: Re:Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Battleship Captain
Oregon
|
solkan wrote:Sure, it could be disallowed on the basis that separate models exist for the two units and there's no reason to let you substitute one for the other, especially if the model in question is stock.
Well that is the exact opposite of what I was hoping to hear.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/19 22:57:22
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
In a friendly game, no problem. You'd have to clear it up before heading into any kind of tournament though.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/19 23:54:38
Subject: Re:Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
minigun762 wrote:solkan wrote:Sure, it could be disallowed on the basis that separate models exist for the two units and there's no reason to let you substitute one for the other, especially if the model in question is stock.
Well that is the exact opposite of what I was hoping to hear. 
Well, you wanted the possible objections, and that's the big one right there.  Luckily, most tournament organizers should be willing to give you a straight answer in advance of the tournament whether the substitution will be okay. That way you'll either know that you're okay before the tournament, or you'll have time to do something else if it's not okay.
There's an additional minor note that it's difficult to use a Soul Grinder as a WYSIWYG Defiler due to the harvester mounted on the right close combat arm. That's a source of potential confusion since it could be a fancy close combat weapon, or it could be one of the ranged weapon options with the rest of the arm decorative.
For a Defiler model in place of a Soul Grinder, you have the opposite and slightly smaller problem of which Defiler arm is least misleading for that same harvester arm. I'd also be willing to speculate that people will expect a Defiler-as-Soul-Grinder to be WYSYWIG taking the phlegm option because of the presence of the battle cannon.
That's all of the nitpicking I can think of.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/20 00:01:37
Subject: Re:Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Battleship Captain
Oregon
|
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm glad I asked now because I wouldn't want to run into this issue in a tournament.
I was just expecting a response more like "oh of course it will be ok, why wouldn't it?"
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/20 04:31:01
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Power-Hungry Cultist of Tzeentch
|
I didn't even think of this until I read this post, but with proper modeling this should work no problem. I converted my Thousand Sons defiler to look like an evil, demonic scorpion. The claws and cannon are removable, just pop a harvester on instead and this guy would look right at home in a shooty Tzeench demon army. Hmmm, now your giving me ideas...
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/20 05:06:37
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
New Zealand
|
The argument isn't for conversion though. It's for taking a stock defiler and saying it's a Soul Grinder. It's akin to using a LRC as a LRR.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/20 05:06:50
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/20 05:23:24
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Power-Hungry Cultist of Tzeentch
|
The op didn't say "stock" , did he? One could interpret this either way. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/21 06:48:26
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
minigun762 wrote:Is there any reason a Defiler couldn't be used as a Soulgrinder and vice versa?
In a CSM force, not at all, as CSM can't take Soulgrinders. Of course, the Soulgrinder would have to count as a Defiler with 2 DNCCWs. In a Daemons force it would be confusing, as I believe both are options.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/21 06:49:30
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/21 16:16:16
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
New Zealand
|
Stock was semi-implied when it was mentioned further up the page without a denial.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/02/21 23:48:52
Subject: Count as question (Defiler/Soulgrinder)
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I own Defilers, and know that at least one of the gun arms can swap for some wierd CCW thing. Not sure about the 2nd, tho.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|