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.

I would say that if it were modeled to "look cool" then I would allow it, but if it were modeled such as the picture of the rhino (I think that is what it is) I would definitely decline to play that person as that is my option. Either that or I would give him a very low sportsman score.

Edit: On a side not as to if it is aloud by rules, I have to say I am not sure. For those who state that the end of the codexes show that modeling is aloud, thos are showcase pieces, and typically showcase pieces typically are not used in games, but should someone play them against me I would give them big props for the time spent making them and would never disallow someone to play them, even that lictor in the 'nid codex I would allow... lol, it just looks badass

lol nice.

This COULD be a touchy subject depending on the conversion.

PErsonally I make my conversion to look cool, but stay with in the original size as much as possible. (obviously some + or - is alowed I think)
But when you get people that make leman russes with 24 inch long barrels (wasnt that in a tournament?) thats just slowed. Seriously what was that persona even thinking? The best part was, he was allowed to do it because the rules didnt say he couldnt lol. Talk about cheating

I've always played it that you can convert anything you want to any size you want for ascetic purposes, but for playing purposes we treat all models as if they were the dimensions of their unconverted model.

That way we get the best of both worlds; awesome models on the table that make no change to how they interact with the rules. Works for me and my local group.

[quote=GwarThis. The rules have to say you CAN do something. Nothing says you CAN convert they Citadel Miniatures, so you cannot.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:So by this line of reasoning, even though the DEX allows it I can't army my KFF BM with a Burna or PK since neither of those come in the blister.

Technically, that would be correct. The game is designed (and states as much in the book) for the range of Citadel miniatures. So, if there isn't a Citadel miniature made yet of what you want, you're out of luck.


Of course, nobody is actually going to hold you to that. The claim that the rulebook doesn't specifically allow converting and so it isn't allowed is generally used as nothing more than a counter for modeling for advantage.

Nodody in their right mind is going to stop you from using reasonable conversions. But it does give you an out if someone is trying to push something that is clearly just modeled for advantage, since the old 'just punch them in the face' response is far less useful in real life.

Since it seems most people agree that conversion situations tend to be a case by case basis I'm curious about my Chimera and whether it would be considered too much/bad sportsmanship/etc.

It essentially looks like this (not as cool though):

Since the turret now covers the top hatch, I consider the front cupola hatch to be the 'fire point' for range and LOS purposes. Is that crossing a line? It gives me a good 2-3 inches of range that I wouldn't normally have and avoids the turret causing LOS issues.

Yes, no, maybe?

DoW

While I love the model, it's no longer a simple Chimera. It could use to proxy a Chimera or even a Leman Russ. In either case, you need to consistently treat it as the model its standing in for, or consistently treat it as the model it physically is (WYSIWYG). Those are the rules; anything else is an agreement between you and your opponent.

SJ

DogOfWar wrote:
Since the turret now covers the top hatch, I consider the front cupola hatch to be the 'fire point' for range and LOS purposes. Is that crossing a line? It gives me a good 2-3 inches of range that I wouldn't normally have and avoids the turret causing LOS issues.

Yes, no, maybe?

Spot decision, because I'm annoyed because I have to study and read a boring book this weekend, is to say, "No. That model has the turret on backwards compared to the Chimera chassis. Why do you need the extra inches of range and improved line of sight?"

Actual opinions during game play may vary.

I disagree morally with converting models to deliberatly gain an advantage.

I have no problem with cool looking miniatures, or the cool-looking predator/chimera hybrid, as these have clearly been modeled for aesthetic reasons.

At the end of the day, 40k is about the HOBBY (to quote Jervis), so if you want to make a cool looking mini, then go for it!

insaniak wrote:Nodody in their right mind is going to stop you from using reasonable conversions. But it does give you an out if someone is trying to push something that is clearly just modeled for advantage, since the old 'just punch them in the face' response is far less useful in real life.

I find "refuse to continue playing with them" to work wonderfully, though.

It really depends on how rigid you want to be. I suppose you could get mad at someone for doing a conversion that gives them an unfair advantage compared to stick GW models, such as taking a vehicle weapon that's fixed(limited firing radius) and sticking it on a turret or pintle mount instead. Even if you're using a base GW model, you're getting some advantage.

I have absolutely no problem with people converting GW kits or historical kits or scratchbuilding their own stuff.

The way things are going, most of my vehicles will be unofficial, non-GW. Even my Tau vehicles are being converted from the original, pure GW kit. They wouldn't be legal if you take the view that it's against the rules to change a kit.

There's a difference though between making a cool variant, or a nice "counts as" model, and pulling a trick like the LoS blocking Rhino Of Wall.

The simple answer is not to play against people who try that kind of a trick. Otherwise, you have to expect GW to put in more and more rules, which will end up getting subverted in some way, and spoil the fun of honest players.

Look at the debacle surrounding "models must be mounted on the base they are supplied with". There are glaring problems with that rule. Imagine those problems multiplied by the power of the number of extra rules needed to deal with gun length a placement, hatches, and variation of infantry pose. What a nightmare scenario!

actually there is a guy at our store who mounted the sponson lascannon on top of the chaos landraider and insists that it is perfectly legal.

I don't like modelling for advantage.
Interestingly there is a prohibition in the new SW codex against it (If a little indirect) regarding canis wolfborn and placing him on a larger base.

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:There is nothing saying you can do it in the rules.

This. The rules have to say you CAN do something. Nothing says you CAN convert they Citadel Miniatures, so you cannot.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument, no matter how you dress it up.

Okay. . .so I know I'm wading into a fire pit here, but doesn't this imply you cannot assemble the models? I mean, the RAW only says "miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." This doesn't say they must be assembled, therefore, they cannot be assembled. By the RAW, it's not clear I can even clip them from the sprue.

I suppose you can say that the instruction manual for the models constitutes an extension of the rules, but what about blisters without instructions? Near as I can tell, the RAW says I can only glue the various bits onto the supplied base.

[Ducking]

NoBanjo wrote:Okay. . .so I know I'm wading into a fire pit here, but doesn't this imply you cannot assemble the models?

Not really. Assembly is implicit in what a model is. Modification is not.


Again, I'll point out that nobody is saying that you can't convert your models. Just don't be a dick about it, and nobody will have any reason to complain.

insaniak wrote:

NoBanjo wrote:Okay. . .so I know I'm wading into a fire pit here, but doesn't this imply you cannot assemble the models?

Not really. Assembly is implicit in what a model is. Modification is not.

No offense, but that argument doesn't even convince me. I don't think it'll work too well on the kind of person who builds a three-foot Land Raider for an extra 15" charge.

Here's my simple two cents. Anyone modeling for advantage is an donkey-cave. Don't play them. Problem solved.

marv335 wrote:I don't like modelling for advantage.
Interestingly there is a prohibition in the new SW codex against it (If a little indirect) regarding canis wolfborn and placing him on a larger base.

That's in the main rules too.

Problems with that rule.

1. There are some kinds of models which are known to have been supplied with three different sizes of base. Which is correct?
2. Some flying models are too heavy to stick on their base and it snaps.
3. Valkyrie.
4. Some models are too large for their base.
5. The rule doesn't stop you from using the legal base and adding grandiose embellishments for an advantage.
6. What about a flying model with landing gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Todosi wrote:Here's my simple two cents. Anyone modeling for advantage is an donkey-cave. Don't play them. Problem solved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having said that, if someone modelled a wall of barrage balloons tethered to Rhinos and carrying huge banners praising Teh Space Emporer, which obscured line of sight, I think I would have to respect the colossal effort which had gone into the setup.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

insaniak wrote:Not really. Assembly is implicit in what a model is. Modification is not.

No offense, but that argument doesn't even convince me. I don't think it'll work too well on the kind of person who builds a three-foot Land Raider for an extra 15" charge.

It wasn't an argument so much as a statement of opinion.

The impression that I've always had over the years is that GW's rules are generally written with stock standard models in mind. They don't (and never have, at least as long as I've been playing) take conversions into account. For that matter, they don't generally take anything other than the current models into account. Case in point: Guard Heavy Weapon teams and the last codex. The rules for HWTs, and how the two models functioned together were somewhat lacking. But that was only a problem if you were using separately based models. If you were using the Cadian HWT's which were released with the codex, the rules worked just fine as is.

So while GW encourage conversions, they don't write rules for them. They just expect players to sort it out amongst themselves... which works fine in some groups, not so well in others.

In practice, at least in my experience, abusive modeling is rare. For all that people have been complaining about the huge evil that is the crouching Wraithlord since as far back as 2nd edition, I've never come across one on the table. Gamers tend to be self-policing about that sort of thing... Players who insist on creating dodgy models start to find themselves short of opponents.


But to return and elaborate somewhat on my original statement, To me, the thing to keep in mind is simply that if you modify a model from how it was designed to be constructed to an extent that alters how it functions within the rules, what you're doing is essentially no different to an introduced house rule. You're creating a situation where that model functions differently to how it was designed to function.

And that, to my mind, gives players an out. If your altered model alters the rules, then your opponent is more than justified in refusing to let you use it.

Flogging a dead horse a little here..... What about the immolator kits? They come with a number of bits and pieces that aren't required from a gaming standpoint, but could be added on in such a way as to give the model a larger footprint.

The Exorcist doesn't even come with instructions (not even the basic Rhino ones), someone being unscrupulous could easily model that, using only the original pieces, to give it a ridiculous range/los.

To be fair, nearly all conversions i've ever seen have been for aesthetic purposes. Someone at my local club has modelled his genestealers ala SpaceHulk, giving him a fantastic army to look at, but giving away a ridiculous advantange in terms of what his opponent can draw los to. His response? "i don't care if it gets shot up, it looks ace".

Now, that's the sort of person i want ot play against

insaniak wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:So by this line of reasoning, even though the DEX allows it I can't army my KFF BM with a Burna or PK since neither of those come in the blister.

Technically, that would be correct. The game is designed (and states as much in the book) for the range of Citadel miniatures. So, if there isn't a Citadel miniature made yet of what you want, you're out of luck.


Of course, nobody is actually going to hold you to that. The claim that the rulebook doesn't specifically allow converting and so it isn't allowed is generally used as nothing more than a counter for modeling for advantage.

Nodody in their right mind is going to stop you from using reasonable conversions. But it does give you an out if someone is trying to push something that is clearly just modeled for advantage, since the old 'just punch them in the face' response is far less useful in real life.

I don't have my rulebook on hand, but doesn't the BRB also say that all gear must be represented WYSIWYG? Could you assume that you are able to modify/convert/fix models to accurately represent their use in game? Hence Forgeworld conversion kits(part of GW), Different GW bits (think the metal bits intended for metal models), and unmodeled units (IG vets). Gwar?

Red9 wrote:I don't have my rulebook on hand, but doesn't the BRB also say that all gear must be represented WYSIWYG?

The rulebook doesn't. Most of the codexes do, to some degree... although they generally just mention the need to show upgrades on the model, rather than all equipment.

Could you assume that you are able to modify/convert/fix models to accurately represent their use in game?

Without an actual rule allowing it, a 'safer' assumption would be to assume that GW will eventually get around to releasing all of those options in model form.

Of course, anyone who has been in the hobby for any length of time knows how likely that is...



Bear in mind, though, that I'm only talking about the rules (or in this case lack thereof) as presented here. In actual practice, make as many assumptions as you want. Modeling and converting are a well established part of the hobby for many players, and would most likely be happening even if GW didn't make such a big deal of it themselves.

Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone should actually use the lack of rules covering it as a reason to not convert their models. It's simply a response to the claim that abusive modeling is allowed by the rules rather than something that people just assume is fine because the rules don't say that they can't do it.