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.

Posted By jfrazell on 11/28/2006 7:58 AM

Posted By Playa on 11/24/2006 5:11 PM

Hey,

Beef wrote:
"with that attitude I doubt you would get many games."

SM's attitude is perfectly legal: BGB pg81 "A note on secrecy..."

Disclosing Unit details, while not strictly forbidden, is definitely optional.

It's a poor attitude to say that anyone declining the option is a cheat.

I'll cheerfully submit a very nice army list *after* the match.

Until then, opponents will just have to roleplay a little . . .


Playa

He didn't say they were cheating. He said they were having a cranial/rectal inversion and wouldn't get many opponents with an attitude like that. I agree.

If you have the attitude, then its WYSIWYG time.  Everything besides grenades has to be modeled.  I believe that includes such things as melta bombs but don’t have a copy of the rules here to verify. If its not, I’d call you out publicly about your cheating behavior, because at that point it is cheating.  If not playing friendly, you’ll get treated as an unfriendly legalistic player.  

 

 

The 4th ed rulebook spells out that the normal and expected way to play in 4th edition is with closed lists.  This doesn't mean you shouldn't answer questions about your unit stats, equipment (once they're visible), special rules, and so forth.  You certainly should.

But the designers have specifically stated that having some surprises, and not knowing the exact contents of your opponent's army beforehand, are the default setting and expectation for the game.  Page 81.

The 3rd ed rules were silent on the subject, and many players were accustomed to local league and tournament rules which mandated open lists.  Open lists can be very useful to prevent some types of cheating, and you can still have a fun and tactical game with open lists. 

But the 4th ed rulebook reset the standard about two years ago, so it really isn't reasonable to expect other players (especially people who started playing in the last two years) to want to play with open lists.  The rulebook is telling them that a certain amount of secrecy is cool and normal.  Opining that they're jerks, "unfriendly legalistic players" or "having a cranial/rectal inversion" is inappropriate and unsportsmanlike.

Posted By Green Angel on 11/24/2006 12:16 AM

 

I ran a tournament once where the guys were deploying...and the one player was blind. He can see shapes and thats about it. So everytime the opponent puts down a unit he asks what it is, etc, since he can't read army lists.

In the final game, for the win of the tournament pretty much, he asks as usual, and his opponent goes, you don't need to know until it matters.

I didn't give out sportsmanship cards because the players always gave each other high marks....(One of them even said it was a joke doing them), so there was no way for the blind player to judge his opponent. I was tempted to dock points on the side but the blind player won the game and the tournament anyway.

 

Dude, Thats really awesome. I love it when the underdog comes out ahead. Neat story.

I disagree strongly with that statement Mannahin.  This is what Beef was originally replying to:

 

"Why do I have to declare anything? Can't I just plonk the unit on the table and say "Your turn to deploy!" ?

I'm not concerned about what is "nice" or "sportsmanlike"....I'm looking for a rule."  

It’s the player’s own statement about what they are and what athey are not concerned about.

 

More importantly, the basic book says you don’t have to show your list. I’ve agreed to that, on the proviso I am comfortable with the player.

 

However, if you don’t reveal your list and don’t describe what your unit has or doesn’t have-merely stating “its WYSIWYG” then you are following the letter of the basic book.  It immediately violates the other portion of the basic book (both sides having fun).  Its assumed that I know what item A on a model is or does -  which can be false, can be modeled improperly, can be intentionally deceiving (we’ve had threads on here by players having all their minis in a chaos squad with chains to intentionally camoflauge their aspiring champion with demonic chains for example).  At that point everything better be perfectly WYSIWYG or that person is cheating because they are following the letter, so they must follow the letter in ALL respects.

 

I can see this conversation.

Player A puts out an early version of a destroyer.

Player B “what is that? I’ve not seen that model before. ”

Player A “Its WYSIWYG. I don’t have to tell you.”

Player B “what does it do?”
Player A “I don’t have to tell you.”

Player B “How fast does it go?”

Player A “I don’t have to tell you, its modeled properly”

Player B “But what is IT?”

Player A “You’ll just have to see. I’m not required to tell you.”

Player B “what army are you playing again?”

Player A “Its modeled I don’t have to tell you…”

 

Yep sounds like fun to me.

 

Hell yeah! Blind Fury...WH40K!

So, are we talking about just handing over your complete army list before the game starts? I thought the whole point was just making sure the players know what each unit has as they come into play. I haven't done this very often, but certain players require it:

Armylist including all units that deploy at the start of the game including transport vehicles.
Seperate cards or lists for each unit that arrives via deep strike and the units inside the transport vehicles.

That way I can hand over the main list and still keep my secrecy. 99% of the time though, a simple run down of the units at the beginning of the game, then as units arrive later is all I do wether the opponent asks or not. My Guard all have grenades on their belts and the command squads all have at least one vox operator but those items are only there for aesthetics. I wouldn't want an opponent to make a tactical decision based on the fact that my units had these items.

Thats quite a cool idea. You have a main list and then cards for each unit which you give to the opponents when the unit comes into play. Really cool idea, solves all problems. Cheers mate, you win the prize for solving my problem.

So, jfrazell, do you volunteer all of that information when you deploy each of your own models?

I'm not sure which would be less fun, the incredibly long deployment phase while you give in depth descriptions of each and every unit's capabilities, or me having to ask you to describe each individual aspect of each individual model every time you deploy a new one since you didn't automatically volunteer the information. Either way the 'fun' rule is violated as either I have to sit through your incredibly long deployment phase or not know exactly what you are fielding.

And for the deploying player, perhaps it is more fun if they can keep an item of wargear 'secret' (as in its truely WYSIWYG but they don't explicitly tell you what it is and you have to *gasp* figure it out for yourself). By demanding that they explicitly disclose everything that is already WYSIWYG just because you don't know what the bit for 'wargear item x' looks like aren't you depriving your opponent of their fun?
Why is your fun more important than theirs?

And there you have it. The game breaks down as the the 'fun' rule is always in contest. 40k is unplayable.





Seriously though, who is actually going to not tell you what a model is if you ask?

 

EDIT:

That's a good idea Glaive. Takes care of everything!

For the record, I have no problem with full disclosure. Whenever anybody asks I'll tell 'em exactly what any give model has, down to the amount of paint I used. I even keep a spare copy of my list in case they want to hold onto it for the whole battle. Shoot, I even set up my pods and the models riding in them on the side of the field.

But requiring it? No way. I don't care if you want a copy of my list, but I'm not going to ask for a copy of yours unless I want to admire it post-game or if I think you're cheating, and I'll only ask about something if it doesn't appear to be WYSIWYG or if I've never seen it before.

Posted By blue loki on 11/28/2006 12:28 PM
Seriously though, who is actually going to not tell you what a model is if you ask?

Ayah thats my real gripe, not with not disclosing a list, but not discussing the unit when it comes on.  Where's the harm when queried to reply "This is grand demon Bob, he has adreadaxe and he's prepared to use it. Does your puny Libriarian wish to come out and play?"

When we set out units we take five seconds to say what the unit is - "this is a tac squad with lascannon and plasma."  It doesn't hurt that frequently most of the unit/item is converted so clarification is needed anyway.

Posted By Mephet'ran on 11/28/2006 12:25 PM
Thats quite a cool idea. You have a main list and then cards for each unit which you give to the opponents when the unit comes into play. Really cool idea, solves all problems. Cheers mate, you win the prize for solving my problem.

That is a good idea.

Give them the basic sheet showing what makes up the army with detailed info. Then when a question aries as to exactly what is what, your prepared with a detailed explantion.

I can see no fault there and is very  friendly while keeping the suprises a suprise.

it also keeps everyone on the up and up.

I hate it when I see people with 6 different sheets that say 6 different things. Suffer not a cheater to play.

I would say you should always let people know what is not WYSIWYG. Every so often I mess up and will forget. In which case I would let the opponent take back attacks or somthing cause it could have affected a descision.

That's the worst! I make multiple lists with different army configs because I will use certain units at different point levels or just experiment (or an opponent wants to play an odd point game and I have to make a list right there). Rarely I will screw something up. D'oh! That's the worst! You end up feeling like a total creep.

I guess I'm just an optimist though. I can't help but think that 99.9% of stuff like that is just honest mistakes and not someone acually trying to pull the wool over their opponent's eyes.  I'm always of the mindset that if an opponent actually thought they needed to cheat to beat me that would actually be a pretty good compliment!

Posted By jfrazell on 11/28/2006 12:02 PM

I disagree strongly with that statement Mannahin.  This is what Beef was originally replying to:

 

"Why do I have to declare anything? Can't I just plonk the unit on the table and say "Your turn to deploy!" ?

I'm not concerned about what is "nice" or "sportsmanlike"....I'm looking for a rule."  

It’s the player’s own statement about what they are and what athey are not concerned about.

 

More importantly, the basic book says you don’t have to show your list. I’ve agreed to that, on the proviso I am comfortable with the player.

 

However, if you don’t reveal your list and don’t describe what your unit has or doesn’t have-merely stating “its WYSIWYG” then you are following the letter of the basic book.  It immediately violates the other portion of the basic book (both sides having fun).  Its assumed that I know what item A on a model is or does -  which can be false, can be modeled improperly, can be intentionally deceiving (we’ve had threads on here by players having all their minis in a chaos squad with chains to intentionally camoflauge their aspiring champion with demonic chains for example).  At that point everything better be perfectly WYSIWYG or that person is cheating because they are following the letter, so they must follow the letter in ALL respects.

 

I can see this conversation.

Player A puts out an early version of a destroyer.

Player B “what is that? I’ve not seen that model before. ”

Player A “Its WYSIWYG. I don’t have to tell you.”

Player B “what does it do?”
Player A “I don’t have to tell you.”

Player B “How fast does it go?”

Player A “I don’t have to tell you, its modeled properly”

Player B “But what is IT?”

Player A “You’ll just have to see. I’m not required to tell you.”

Player B “what army are you playing again?”

Player A “Its modeled I don’t have to tell you…”

 

Yep sounds like fun to me.

 

I don't even know how to start.

First of all, I must admit I think of this as a discussion that only has relevance when it comes to tournies/PUGs. What ever different people want to do within the confines of their private gaming-group, is fine by me.

A. It seems to me, that you automatically assume that the reason why I don't declare anything I can think of, is because i'm trying to cheat (re. models with chains). I take exception to that. I take extreme pains to models everything WYSIWYG. I ask myself; "Is there ANY way in which this can be confusing to my opponent?". Should the answer be "Yes", I'll remodel or represent it in another way entirely.

B. I don't care what provisos you have. You can see my list after the game. The only tournies I have attended pre-approved all armylists before the start of the very first game. In which case you can safely assume my list is legal. Have you any doubts about the validity of my list, feel free to call a ref.

C1. Know thine enemy or suffer the consequenses. This, I know, is a bit of a controversial standpoint. Player A deploys a standard run-of-the-mill normally assembled Monolith. Player B asks; "What is that big thing?". Player A answers; "It's a Monolith". Player B asks; "What does it do?". Player A answers; "You'll see". Skip forward a few minutes. Player B asks; "Can it really do that?". Player A shows relevant Codex and points out relevant rule. Player B says; "I didn't know it could do that". Player A thinks; "Your loss, mate", but says; "I'm sorry to hear that". I buy every single Codex in an effort to try to anticipate my opponent. Should I not be able to afford every single Codex, I would borrow it from my friends or atleast gain acces to it some other (legal) way.

C2. A note on secrecy. Player A deploys a unit saying; "I choose to deploy unit X and I deploy them inside their dedicated transport". Player B asks; "What weapons/options/grenades/icecream does unit X carry?". Player A answers; "You dont know that". Skip a few minutes ahead. Player A disembarks unit X from its transport. Players B asks; "Is that glowing red sword a powerweapon?". Player A answers; "Yes, it is. All my powerweapons are painted glowing red and all my close combat weapons are painted plain metal".

D. The virtues of sportsmanship. I'd love to enter a discussion on sportsmanship. Should you wish to do the same, I suggest you start a new thread in a forum other than YMDC.

E. We are left with a few facts. The standard must said to be "Closed-armylists" as per BGB page 81. All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model as per every single Codex I have at hand. I'm not even sure grenades are excepted. I couldn't find any rule saying so (but that may just be me not looking hard enough).

 

I'm left with a strange feeling of not knowing what we are discussing and why.

 

 

 

 

A. It seems to me, that you automatically assume that the reason why I don't declare anything I can think of, is because i'm trying to cheat (re. models with chains). I take exception to that. I take extreme pains to models everything WYSIWYG. I ask myself; "Is there ANY way in which this can be confusing to my opponent?". Should the answer be "Yes", I'll remodel or represent it in another way entirely.

So what your saying is not telling you opponent ANYTHING about your list is ok and also good sportmanship?

B. I don't care what provisos you have. You can see my list after the game. The only tournies I have attended pre-approved all armylists before the start of the very first game. In which case you can safely assume my list is legal. Have you any doubts about the validity of my list, feel free to call a ref.

People who do this are asking to be dinged on sports. I always give my list to the other person tell them what I have let them know whats not WYSIWYG (unless i forget in which case see above). I don't need secrecy to win a game. I don't think being secrative is cheating its just bad sportmanship. Some people believe that staying within the rules EXACTLY as long as all rules are followed and being self declared rules enforcers is what sportmanship is all about. Let me give you this example. Say there is a sporting game. All rules are followed no fouls or anything. After the game the winning team does not shake hands and calls the losing team a bunch of losers and give them the finger. Have they violated any rules? nope. So they must be good sportmen. They did not cheat, they followed all rules. Thier conduct outside the game should therfore have no effect on thier sportsmanship right. There is no rule saying the MUST shake hands. They go home and scratch thier heads wondering why people call them bad sportmen. Its doing what is NOT required by rules that I think often makes people better sportmen. One guy I played in an RTT once even moved terrain around for me so that I could hide my basilisk. From that moment on I pretty much knew he was gonna get maximum sportmanship unless he did somthing really awful like fling dice at me or somthing. The rules did NOT require him to do that but he did because he was a good sportman. Volunteering to show your list is good sportmanship. When people refuse to do it, I don't care what stupid rules say you can or cannot do it makes the other person uncomfortable and uneasy and it makes you look like an ass. That is never good sportmanship. I love dinging people for sport cause of that. Especially since they are usually the ones that will end up on the short end of the stick. WHy? because they care more about winning than I do.

C1. Know thine enemy or suffer the consequenses. This, I know, is a bit of a controversial standpoint. Player A deploys a standard run-of-the-mill normally assembled Monolith. Player B asks; "What is that big thing?". Player A answers; "It's a Monolith". Player B asks; "What does it do?". Player A answers; "You'll see". Skip forward a few minutes. Player B asks; "Can it really do that?". Player A shows relevant Codex and points out relevant rule. Player B says; "I didn't know it could do that". Player A thinks; "Your loss, mate", but says; "I'm sorry to hear that". I buy every single Codex in an effort to try to anticipate my opponent. Should I not be able to afford every single Codex, I would borrow it from my friends or atleast gain acces to it some other (legal) way.

This again is just being an ass. If someone told be I should buy every codex in the game after refusing to tell me what things are or do I would be convinced he is a complete jerk. Then if for what ever reason I didn't just pack up and say "You win" then zero him out on everything, the only reason I would stay would to to try to beat him, then ZERO him out. Why you ask...." I dont have to tell you." sound familiar.

C2. A note on secrecy. Player A deploys a unit saying; "I choose to deploy unit X and I deploy them inside their dedicated transport". Player B asks; "What weapons/options/grenades/icecream does unit X carry?". Player A answers; "You dont know that". Skip a few minutes ahead. Player A disembarks unit X from its transport. Players B asks; "Is that glowing red sword a powerweapon?". Player A answers; "Yes, it is. All my powerweapons are painted glowing red and all my close combat weapons are painted plain metal".

As a common courtesy I think one should always tell the other player whats in a transport. Sure you don't have to, but the game rules don't say much about being a good sportman either.

E. We are left with a few facts. The standard must said to be "Closed-armylists" as per BGB page 81. All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model as per every single Codex I have at hand. I'm not even sure grenades are excepted. I couldn't find any rule saying so (but that may just be me not looking hard enough).

This is what I was talking about earlier. people finding ways to justify acting like a jerk through rules. people like that always lose.  When I have gone to RTT's its to have fun.  Yeah I want to win but Im not gonna act like that.

So what your saying is not telling you opponent ANYTHING about your list is ok and also good sportmanship?

No, I didn't say that. read my post.

People who do this are asking to be dinged on sports. I always give my list to the other person tell them what I have let them know whats not WYSIWYG (unless i forget in which case see above). I don't need secrecy to win a game. I don't think being secrative is cheating its just bad sportmanship. Some people believe that staying within the rules EXACTLY as long as all rules are followed and being self declared rules enforcers is what sportmanship is all about. Let me give you this example. Say there is a sporting game. All rules are followed no fouls or anything. After the game the winning team does not shake hands and calls the losing team a bunch of losers and give them the finger. Have they violated any rules? nope. So they must be good sportmen. They did not cheat, they followed all rules. Thier conduct outside the game should therfore have no effect on thier sportsmanship right. There is no rule saying the MUST shake hands. They go home and scratch thier heads wondering why people call them bad sportmen. Its doing what is NOT required by rules that I think often makes people better sportmen. One guy I played in an RTT once even moved terrain around for me so that I could hide my basilisk. From that moment on I pretty much knew he was gonna get maximum sportmanship unless he did somthing really awful like fling dice at me or somthing. The rules did NOT require him to do that but he did because he was a good sportman. Volunteering to show your list is good sportmanship. When people refuse to do it, I don't care what stupid rules say you can or cannot do it makes the other person uncomfortable and uneasy and it makes you look like an ass. That is never good sportmanship. I love dinging people for sport cause of that. Especially since they are usually the ones that will end up on the short end of the stick. WHy? because they care more about winning than I do.

First of all, you can't field any model that isn't WYSIWYG. All weapons and wargear must be represented.
Nice little story.....zero impact on the discussion. Would you like to discuss the virtues on sportsmanship, please do so in another thread in, say "Dakka Discussions". This is YMDC.

This again is just being an ass. If someone told be I should buy every codex in the game after refusing to tell me what things are or do I would be convinced he is a complete jerk. Then if for what ever reason I didn't just pack up and say "You win" then zero him out on everything, the only reason I would stay would to to try to beat him, then ZERO him out. Why you ask...." I dont have to tell you." sound familiar?

I expected such a response. I know my point of view is a controversial one. Please know I didn't expect you to "buy" every Codex. But I do expect you to prepare......if you don't?....your loss!
BTW love you little twist of the "I don't have to tell you".    I really do.

As a common courtesy I think one should always tell the other player whats in a transport. Sure you don't have to, but the game rules don't say much about being a good sportman either.

What is the rule? Would you like to discuss the virtues on sportsmanship, please do so in another thread in, say "Dakka Discussions". This is YMDC.

This is what I was talking about earlier. people finding ways to justify acting like a jerk through rules. people like that always lose. When I have gone to RTT's its to have fun. Yeah I want to win but Im not gonna act like that.

Are you actually disputing that these are the facts of the game? You don't want to act like that? Fine, but don't cry when someone does.

The original poster asked if your opponent had to declare all the stuff that wasn't WYSIWYG. Actually said opponent can't field a model that isn't WYSIWYG.
He also asked if the opponent had to explain what was what on a unit that was WYSIWYG. And by default he does. Because if you are in doubt what your opponent is fielding, it isn't WYSIWYG.
But he does not have to declare what a unit inside a transport has. Thems the rules.

And just to be on the safe side. This is YMDC. Would you like to discuss the virtues on sportsmanship, please do so in another thread in, say "Dakka Discussions". This is YMDC.

You're right. As this is YMDC legally they only have to be WYSIWYG, you don't need to show your list. However there is nothing in the rules one way or the other about actually discussing units in question.

I know that the rules say things must be WYSIWYG however my point was that one can chose to be anal about things or not.   Ill leave it at that.  Ill start a sports thread later.

Its not a question of being anal about it, there are simply only two distinct results.

Either you're WYSIWYG or you're not, there is no legal grey area.

WYSI-A-WYG does not exist in the rules.

personally, anything which isn't WYSIWYG I declare, and expect my opponent to do the same. I look at army lists after the battle most of the time, unless my opponent really wants to see mine, i like a challenge. Sometimes I'll show him mine and not see his, just to make things fun. After all, knowing what's in my army won't help him win in most cases, but i can see how the opposite can be true for some armies. Knowing a unit has furious charge or tank hunters can be very valuable information.

Well again its hard to argue this WYSIWYG without delving into sportmanship. Usually the same people that are anal about WYSIWYG are the same ones that say the legs of a defiler don't count if ordnance scatters onto them. Do I get what I see or not as WYSIWYG implies. As the rules say if ordnance hole lands on the vehicle/model its a hit at 2d6 str. yet claiming I hit what I get is bad sportmanship to some equal to not having frag granades.

NOt to mention the rulebook says that the upgrades need to be represented on the model. not VISIBLE on the model. So say I do not have a hunter killer missle visible on the outside of the model, who is to say it doesn't shoot out of some hatch that opens up. Its ON the model, just its ON the model internally. Even though its not visible. Same to frags, cant see 'em they guardsmen carry then in thier pockets, yup represented ON the model. NOt visible, but they are ON the model. No carapace, the plates are worn UNDER thier pants. ON the model, just not visible. Commander has no powerfist, it is a power fist, a small one painted like his skin color. Actually the codex never says WHAT things are. There is no place that says, THIS IS A LASCANNON and has a picture is there?, THIS IS A HVY BOLTER see picture. Or perhaps I am wrong and there is. WHy not point to a hull mounted weapon that looks like a lascannon and say thats what hull hvy bolters look like in my army.

If there is tell me where it is. Since people like playing RAW, where does it have pictures of what things are and where does it say things MUST look like that.

@Smart_Alex, In regards to your Defiler statement, I would ask you to please refer to the BGB page 6. The section titled BASES clearly supports the case for not counting the legs under a template.

Now, I am not sure how a models upgrade can be represented without being visible. If, in your example, a model has a hunter-killer missile on the inside of the vehicle, then you will have to open the vehicle to show that the HK missile is truly represented. Otherwise your HK missile is NOT represented.

Actually, per the latest rulebook FAQ, the Defiler needs to be mounted on a base; otherwise, it has no legal reference point for targetting or measuring its range. (page 3 of the PDF, second question/answer) So, the legs are immaterial; it's the Defiler's base that matters.

Posted By lord_sutekh on 11/29/2006 11:32 PM
Actually, per the latest rulebook FAQ, the Defiler needs to be mounted on a base; otherwise, it has no legal reference point for targetting or measuring its range. (page 3 of the PDF, second question/answer) So, the legs are immaterial; it's the Defiler's base that matters.

Sutekh is this what you are referring to:

Q. When measuring distances to/from a skimmer

vehicle, do you count the hull of the model or do you

count the base it is on?

A. The rules on page 6 (Bases) say that distances

should be measured to/from the base, except for

vehicles without a base, when you should use the hull.

However, this would prove absolutely unplayable in the

case of large Skimmers (like a Wave Serpent, a Devilfish

or a Monolith). The ruling in this case must be that for all

vehicles (except Walkers), distances are measured

to/from the hull, while for all non-vehicle models (and

Walkers) distances are measured to/from the base.

 

Q. Where are the LOS and range of a vehicle's guns

measured from?

A. The LOS of the guns is worked out from the gun

themselves (rule book, page 64, Vehicle line of sight).

Distances should be measured from the hull, but this

generates some very odd and impractical situations. So,

for the sake of playability, we have to state that the range

of a gun fired from a vehicle (except Walkers) is

measured from the muzzle of the gun itself, for all other

models (including Walkers) it is measured from the

model’s base.

 

It was my understanding that shots had to strike the body of the model, and had nothing to do with the base (and of course defilers don't come with bases anyway and would fit under the first part-hull.  This of course, opens the argument of whether 'body" includes the legs or not.

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/40k_rulebook_faq.pdf

Posted By smart_alex on 11/29/2006 5:44 PM
Actually the codex never says WHAT things are. There is no place that says, THIS IS A LASCANNON and has a picture is there?, THIS IS A HVY BOLTER see picture. Or perhaps I am wrong and there is. WHy not point to a hull mounted weapon that looks like a lascannon and say thats what hull hvy bolters look like in my army.

If there is tell me where it is. Since people like playing RAW, where does it have pictures of what things are and where does it say things MUST look like that.

There is a section near the "special weapons" page that shows what weapons look like in the big rule book.  If you like Ill get you the exact page a little later.

Walkers no longer use the "body" rule; they have to have bases. Whether it comes with one or not is immaterial; I had to buy bases for my Dreadnoughts that I bought back in 2nd ed., when they didn't come with them. Since Defilers are Walkers, the same restriction applies to them.

@Lord_sutekk, where did you come across this new rule?

I understand the idea of dreads now having to be based because the new dreads do come with bases, but defilers do not come with bases.

Posted By Darrian13 on 11/30/2006 10:44 AM
@Lord_sutekk, where did you come across this new rule?

I understand the idea of dreads now having to be based because the new dreads do come with bases, but defilers do not come with bases.

I agree, please show or cite where it says walkers now have to have bases.  The FAQ line noted above does not require that.

You can't fit into the above ruling without one. Otherwise, there is no means of legally measuring range to or from the Walker. It states explicitly, in no uncertain terms, that Walkers use bases, not the "body", for such measurements. Thus, it has to have a base, since it will be a null-set if the base isn't present.

Considering the FAQ writer is addressing a quesiton specifically about skimmers, I think its safe to assume that Defilers didn't enter his consideration when the made the broad generalization that walker distances are measured to/from the base.

Having said that, if the above quoted ruling is word-for-word from an approved FAQ, then GW simply made another blunder and Defilers now indeed do require a base per RAW, but only if you want to measure any distances to/from it.

What base to use? Well, as the BGB clearly states, a model may use any base bigger than or equal to the one it is supplied from. As a Defiler is not supplied with a base, the minimum size base required for a Defiler is therefore any shape you choose with a surface area of 0".


I suggest we drop this tom-foolery and treat a Defiler just like any other non-based vehicle.

So, according to that, I could stick a trooper base on one foot of my 90's-era Dreads, and it'd be legal, since they didn't come with any bases at all? Good to know.

If you were so inclined, yes.

It's one of the only definitive rules on 40k modeling.

The FAQ above does not address what happens if the walker has no base (ie defiler in this context). The FAQ above does not state that walkers are required to have bases.

"For all other models it is measured from their base" is correct but does not in any way address walkers without bases, only noting vehicles are from their hull.