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.

No, a multitude of bases is not allowed. The only base that allowed is the one the model was supplied with or larger. What some other model comes with, even if it is meant to represent the exact same unit is of no consequence.

So basically, if I want to, I could arm up my army with Steel Legion, but use the old Cadians for my heavy weapons. Then, over time, convert just the weapons to those used by the Steel Legion, then, later, convert the mounts, then later still, the models themselves. Or I could just say that's what I did. GW allows any conversions as long as they utilize their models and their supplies (they actually allow a certain ratio of other models or original modeling and supplies). In the end I would end up with Steel Legion weapons on old Cadian bases, and I might choose to put the models without bases on them on a base.

So you want to lie to your opponents and claim that you coverted them from one model when it has absolutely no pieces of the original model on the finished product. Seems to me that you need to learn a thing or two about sportsmanship.

Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.

It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

Scottywan82 wrote:Okay, so gist of the rule: IG Heavy Weapons Squads must be on one 60mm base?

No. They must be on whichever base they are supplied with.


Very, very few players will be concerned with what size base you use, though. So long as you discuss the house rules you are using for the team before the game begins.

Are you saying that I am lying? I do happen to own all the old Cadian and Steel Legion heavy weapons teams. Since the Steel Legion boys do not have an autocannon I can base them off the old Cadian models.

Secondly, sportsmanship has little to do with what your models look like, as long as they are properly represented on the table (i.e.: your heavy bolters meet the GW supplied model specs.). Violating sportsmanship would be like poking your Brightlance platform around a corner while the crew and all of the squad stand behind a building. I don't know if the new Eldar codex allows that, but the old one did not but every Eldar opponent I ran into said it could, though it wasn't in the rules. Doing that even if the rules did not disallow it would also be unsportsmanlike (not giving your opponent a fair chance to defend themselves).

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.

It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

No he's not. He's out-and-out lying to his opponent to gain an illegal advantage and that's it. That's why he says "... Or I could just say that's what I did..." because he has no plans whatsoever to actually try and convert the models. All it is is a sorry excuse to make up a reason that the rules should say something other than what they actually do.

Let's hear it for Ghaz, master of the hostile reading. Where others see a reductio ad absurdum argument, he sees an earnest claim. Perhaps if the OP had said "Well then, I'll just deploy nothing and tell my opponent I've converted all my minis and bases from entirely transparent material," you'd think the poster was really planning to do that, too? Naive beyond words or cynical beyond belief? Thanks to my new friend the Ignore Button, I need never find out.

Ghaz wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Well no Ghaz, what he's doing is using a Ship of Theseus-like thought experiment to try to argue for equivalence between a Cadian on a 25mm base and a Steel Legionnaire on a 25mm that has been gradually converted into a Cadian.
It may not be a very good argument, but it is plain as day that it's a hypothetical. Your response is in bad faith.

No he's not. He's out-and-out lying to his opponent to gain an illegal advantage and that's it. That's why he says "... Or I could just say that's what I did..." because he has no plans whatsoever to actually try and convert the models. All it is is a sorry excuse to make up a reason that the rules should say something other than what they actually do.

Actually I never said that's what I would do, if you read what I wrote as what I wrote it. But assumptions are good too, if you want to get what you want out of something, rather then what was intended.

Another option is to just convert the bases from the old Cadians (which are completely available from GW without the models) onto other units. As long as your missile launchers are using the same bases as old Cadian or even the Steel Legion missile launcher teams would use. The only thing you can not do is use bases smaller then what GW supplies for their models. Just because GW is inconsistant with their base sizes, does not mean there is an "illegal advantage" to using one model in place of another, as long as they have the same weapons as eachother. Or I could just miss-match my armies. It wouldn't be as pretty, but it would satisfy a more stringant interpretation (which has no basis in the rules I mind you).

Let's keep it civil, folks.

If someone's even going to 'hypothetically' considering lying and cheating, then he's very likely to consider doing so in real life and is condoning it as a valid option. If it's not something that you would do, then you don't put it forward as a 'hypothetical' situation.

Ghaz wrote:If someone's even going to 'hypothetically' considering lying and cheating, then he's very likely to consider doing so in real life and is condoning it as a valid option. If it's not something that you would do, then you don't put it forward as a 'hypothetical' situation.

I would agree if this was lying and/or cheating. But it is neither.

Just to clarify. Ghaz claims that there is a significant advantage to smaller or seperate bases, so therefor, if they are used, then the player is cheating. So if I were to use my old Cadian army, then I would be able to use the smaller bases. Therefor, I am cheating! Since as far as the rules and gameplay, and everything that matters mechanics wise are the same, except that the heavy weapons are on seperate and/or smaller bases I am gaining an advantage I shouldn't be getting just because I am using the older models! But if I were to decide I wanted a Steel Legion army as well, I should have to take the hit (thus losing some sort of advantage that has not yet been clarified) and plop my lascannons and crews onto large bases as they are supplied. But someone who is converting their models to something not Steel Legion or new Cadians or new Catachans, they would be able to use the older bases for their heavy weapons, as they are not using the strictly supplied model line that GW has prepared in neat little boxes or blister packs.

So say I am a new IG gamer, and I want to do Steel Legion, but I find the large bases obtuse and difficult to handle (not everyone shares the same opinion of what is easy to handle) wither because the large bases do not fit in my army carrying case or I don't like how they tend to flop around when I'm handling them. So instead I go out and buy a pack of bases and a bunch of Steel Legion heavy weapons teams blisters. I use the same bases that an old Cadian model would use (and was still supplied until GW decided to temporarily suspend their online bitz catalog) or hey, the Tallarn, Valhallan, or Mordian lines as well, leaving only the Steel Legion, new Cadian and Catachan, and the brand spanking new Vostroyan lines using large bases, so about half the IG armies still use the smaller and seperate bases (if you still count the ever popular old Cadian models and are not counting all the old, but now "retro" armies, which would push the ratio well into the smaller bases category), but use the Steel Legion models instead. This is legally a conversion, as I am using legit older (in age, not relevancy) army bases and newer (but still admittedly old) heavy weapon models. Not only are the smaller bases more effiecient to use, but tend to look more distinctive as well (the bigger bases need to be "busied up" or you have a lot of open and ugly ground). There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs. If you want to fop down a new Cadian lascannon in place of the Steel Legion one, that's fine. So why can you not fop down Steel Legion troopers and weapons in place of old Cadians? If you can point out an advantage to using smaller bases that is both legitimate and significant, then go right ahead.

I hate modelling two models on one base. All my HW teams have the gun on the 60mil base (assuming they even have a base - I have more old metal Guard than new plastic), and then the loader (or other crewguy if you want to be pedantic) on a regular base.

It's actually more convenient than mounting them on the same base.

BYE

Skinnattittar wrote:There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs.

Indeed. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules that say you can use conversions at all.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:There are no rules about converstions that say you have to use completely original ideas or designs.

Indeed. So far as I'm aware, there are no rules that say you can use conversions at all.

There are also no rules saying you can use modify units to use special weapons, so everyone can say goodbye to their special weapons since you have to typically hack off their main weapons to use them. Except for the IG, who's special weapons come complete with arms and such.

Which models need to have their weapon 'hacked off' in order to give them a special weapon?

Oh wait, Marine bolters aren't attached to their hands anymore... sorry, you're right.

It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models, but it also doesn't specify you have to use them as supplied, just that they have to fall with in their supplied limits (what they have is what they got idea).

Skinnattittar wrote:It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models,

Which means that technically, they're not allowed.

The fact that the rulebook doesn't specifically disallow something doesn't make it legal.



And no, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't allow an opponent to use converted models... I'd be the last person to complain on those grounds.

But claiming that you can get around the rules by the use of creative conversion doesn't actually work unless you can provide a rule that allows the conversion in the first place.

woot

I dunno, I run my guys with Close Order Drill so I have two 25mm-based crewmen and an unbased heavy weapon (like with the old metals) to maintain gunline integrity. The gun is placed between the firer (the guy modeled to be pulling a firing cord) and the loader (the guy modeled to be holding extra ammo) or in front of the firer. As long as I'm not cheesing by firing around corners or something I can't imagine anyone having a problem with something like that. And someone who would pull a rules lawyer complaint out on that probably isn't the sort of person I'd want to play against anyways.

I suppose that's a bit of a tautology but I play for fun, I don't do tourneys and I have a problem with seeing this matter as LOL SERIOUS BUSINESS LOL.

It's a matter of preference, just like you choosing to play someone is. If it bothers you that much, don't play against him.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:It's true that the rulebook does not directly support converstion models,

Which means that technically, they're not allowed.
The fact that the rulebook doesn't specifically disallow something doesn't make it legal.
And no, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't allow an opponent to use converted models... I'd be the last person to complain on those grounds.
But claiming that you can get around the rules by the use of creative conversion doesn't actually work unless you can provide a rule that allows the conversion in the first place.

Ah, nevermind, here we are. In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army. So yes, converted models ARE allowed, in fact, they are encouraged. So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section. And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take (as they must be represented on the models). Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k, therefore, modelling rules there apply to the rest of the rulebook.

so then what happens if you bit order a weapons sprue and there is no base? Since it it supplied with no base then you dont even need one heh heh.

Actually, that's completely wrong. bitz are bitz, not full units, that is pretty much explicit and obvious. You should know that, it's pretty much the biggest "dur" you can get. If you order a special weapons sprue you are ordering PART of a weapon, you need to complete it to meet the specs of a pre existing unit, you can't just make it up. That example is just jibing for an arguement, it doesn't even have a base in a realistic scenario, essentially, it's just entirely wrong.

Now units that are represented in rule books but not by the GW line are complicated, this is something I was just thinking about. I don't think there is anything anymore like that, I know that the IG had a couple tanks GW stopped making/supplying, but there were pre-existing examples to go off of, and you could still bitz order them.

Skinnattittar wrote:In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army.

Yes... for specific situations.

They show conversions to use as Sentries, for Kill Teams, and for Campaign Battle Homours. All specific rules situations.

So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section.

Yep. So long as you're playing Kill Team, that is.

And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take

Got a specific reference? Because I can't see any such statement in my codex.

(as they must be represented on the models).

Not seeing this rule in there either.

The closest it gets is in the Armoury, where it mentions that all weapons and wargear must be modeled. Doesn't say that you can convert your own instead of using the Citadel model for it, and doesn't mention special equipment.

Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k,

It's listed in its own section, with its own specific rules. Those rules no more apply to any other game of 40K than the rules of one Standard scenario apply to any other scenario. It's an alternate way to play, not a set of extra rules for standard games.

insaniak wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:In the back of the rule book they run many examples of converter and modified units, going to length explaining how they can be used to add character and originality to your army.

Yes... for specific situations.
They show conversions to use as Sentries, for Kill Teams, and for Campaign Battle Homours. All specific rules situations.

So we now have basis to utilize converted models based on the rules. A good example is in the "Kill-Team" section.

Yep. So long as you're playing Kill Team, that is.

And while we are on rule books, the IG codex sites several times in the back that you will have to model many (almost all, actually) of the special equipment doctrines you will have to take

Got a specific reference? Because I can't see any such statement in my codex.

(as they must be represented on the models).

Not seeing this rule in there either.
The closest it gets is in the Armoury, where it mentions that all weapons and wargear must be modeled. Doesn't say that you can convert your own instead of using the Citadel model for it, and doesn't mention special equipment.

Kill-Team is not stated as being a seperate rule set to the rest of 40k,

It's listed in its own section, with its own specific rules. Those rules no more apply to any other game of 40K than the rules of one Standard scenario apply to any other scenario. It's an alternate way to play, not a set of extra rules for standard games.

To quote you on most all of your assumption above; "Where does it say that?" As for the special equipment, you're right! Therefore, I can simply take my army to any competition all geared up with Cameoline and Carapace armor and just use the basic Catachan models! So that means that I don't have to use Citadel models in general, as that's not in there either which then also means that I can make whatever I want to represent whatever I want... intriguing... your literal view of the rule book has allowed me to circumvent having to ever buy any GW models. Oh, wait, GW repetedly reminds their customers that they have to use their models within a ratio of conversion (I think the numer is 75% their stuff or something).

I think what our friend Insaniak is trying to do here is cause trouble for the arguement. No, there are plenty of examples used by GW in most all of their rule books that show conversions being used in play, and they make NO reference to it being a special situation. Since they actually do state that conversions are able to be used, and are encouraged for variety and "fun" of the game, it is hardly a leap of any sort of faith to the conclusion that conversions are allowed. Since GW induces conversions and does not exclude them from others, the RAW is they are allowed. Unless you can point to a rule that conversions that realistically represent the models being played are not allowed with the exclusion of GW stated situations.

Skinnattittar wrote:To quote you on most all of your assumption above; "Where does it say that?"

All through the Kill Team section, where it refers to it as a way of playing small scale games, and introduces Kill Team specific rules.

Therefore, I can simply take my army to any competition all geared up with Cameoline and Carapace armor and just use the basic Catachan models!

You could indeed. Unless, of course, the competition in question has its own WYSIWYG rules, as is often the case.

So that means that I don't have to use Citadel models in general, as that's not in there either

Page 6, first sentence.

I think what our friend Insaniak is trying to do here is cause trouble for the arguement.

No, what Insaniak is trying to do is point out that there is no rules basis for using a conversion to circumvent a rule that you don't like.

No, there are plenty of examples used by GW in most all of their rule books that show conversions being used in play, and they make NO reference to it being a special situation.

So?

Since they actually do state that conversions are able to be used,

And once again: Where?

the RAW is they are allowed.

It's only RAW if it's actually written.

Being an accepted convention does not make it RAW.



But this went silly quite a long time ago. The simple fact is that while the RAW says that models must be based on bases at least as large as those they are supplied with, you can base your Imperial Guard heavies however you want and the vast majority of players won't care.

But if coming up with convoluted schemes to ciircumvent rules that practically nobody actually cares about is what floats your boat, then don't let me stop you...

Page 6, first sentence, or even that paragraph does not state you have to use Citadelt miniatures, just that the miniatures that are being used in the rules that follow are simply referred to as "models." It does not say that is what a player has to use. Though I suppose this can be up to multiple interprestations. Though it does not say you have to, therefore, it does not say you can not use other models.

As for a "rule that I don't like," I have never stated that this is my purpose or my feeling, since it is neither a rule made by GW nor does it apply to my situation. So far I have used all of my standard issue bases. The RAW part does not limit a player's choice in models, and although GW does not explicitely state conversions are legal, their sheer volume of examples and encouragement to personalise a player's army so heavily infers over repetition that basic deduction concludes their intention. Essentially, they allow conversions, until they state they do not and that was not their intention. But now we are arguing RAW.

Sillyness, agreed. Once people start whipping out law level tactics and interpretations the spirit of Warhammer 40,000 is crushed. It is a game, and only a game.

Skinnattittar wrote:Page 6, first sentence, or even that paragraph does not state you have to use Citadelt miniatures, just that the miniatures that are being used in the rules that follow are simply referred to as "models."

Right. It defines the term 'model' as being applied to the Citadel miniatures used in the game.

So, sure, use other miniatures. But they won't be considered 'models' by the rules... which is going to make using them a tad difficult

and although GW does not explicitely state conversions are legal, their sheer volume of examples and encouragement to personalise a player's army so heavily infers over repetition that basic deduction concludes their intention.

Surely you've been here long enough now to understand the general reception that 'intention' gets around here as a rules argument...

Once people start whipping out law level tactics and interpretations the spirit of Warhammer 40,000 is crushed.

You mean tactics like using conversions to circumvent the rules?

Well, actually the sentence only seems to refer to the models used in the book, not stating that those are the only things considered "models."

Now I'm just playing devils advocate for that one, and I feel that is what Insaniak has been doing as well.