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.

Honersstodnt wrote:as long as your codex says it, and we both agree to use your older edition codex, its all good. The ONLY exception would be if its a scoring vehicle, because the 5th edition rulebook says no vehicles can ever score.

Unless it is transporting a scoring unit... This now becomes awkward, the unit is bought from the troops section and mounted on bikes. Are they still a vehicle if they then dismount? or just a regular scoring squad from the troops section? Personally I think this sounds more 'cheat' and more complicated than just allowing the bike squad a couple of chainswords for the appropriate cost, then no one has to remember any proxies.

Terminus wrote:but it's doubtful many people would want to try to keep track of all your proxies and counts-as game after game after game. That, or given your non-standard army, they will declare the game to be Apocalypse, drop down a few titans, and stomp your face in.

I'm going to have my face stomped in by a 3 foot tall monstrosity built out of toilet roll centres?... and presumably a huge nerd? Oh nose!

Frazzled wrote:Don't get caught up in a lot of the BS being put out about cheating blah blah. You have old minis. repaint as can and use them as counts as otherwise in friendly games. Just make sure the same item counts for the same thing across the list and your opponent is fully aware.

Thank you for your comment, it's actually very comforting to hear someone else call BS, but this is actually the very same BS that made me want to stop playing :( . I love painting and modelling and reading stories about 40k... But I just feel life is too short to argue with some jerk over my biker not being allowed a chainsword (which I only put there for aesthetics), while he fills his army with all the most cheesy, game breaking stuff the lists can offer.

I'm sure one of the tag lines for 40k used to be 'the only limit is your imagination'. That is the attraction for me, of 40k over more modern pastimes like computer games, you have total freedom to bring your army to life... and then shoot stuff with it. But that's all for nothing if the real limit is a 5 page army list, and how much of a rules Nazi your opponent is.

I think I've heard enough now really. And I don't think I want to get back into gaming. I'll just stick to painting a modelling. That way I can make my army (which is mine after all) how I want them to be... put them on a shelf. And it's non of anyone else's business.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Melissia wrote:And why do my rhinos cost fifteen points more, and only one person can fire out of its fire point?

Play with whatever houserules you want... but remember they're houserules, your opponent and you agree upon them.

Don't rhinos have two fire points?

Not in C:WH. C:WH rhinos have one fire point. Back in the day, you used to be able to fire two models out of each fire point, so that was all that was needed. At least if I was remembering correctly. I know there was a white dwarf mentioning that, but then that's White Dwarf for you.

But yes, 5th edition Rhinos have two fire points. DH/WH rhinos have one.

SmackCakes wrote:
Thank you for your comment, it's actually very comforting to hear someone else call BS, but this is actually the very same BS that made me want to stop playing :( . I love painting and modelling and reading stories about 40k... But I just feel life is too short to argue with some jerk over my biker not being allowed a chainsword (which I only put there for aesthetics), while he fills his army with all the most cheesy, game breaking stuff the lists can offer.

I'm sure one of the tag lines for 40k used to be 'the only limit is your imagination'. That is the attraction for me, of 40k over more modern pastimes like computer games, you have total freedom to bring your army to life... and then shoot stuff with it. But that's all for nothing if the real limit is a 5 page army list, and how much of a rules Nazi your opponent is.

I think I've heard enough now really. And I don't think I want to get back into gaming. I'll just stick to painting a modelling. That way I can make my army (which is mine after all) how I want them to be... put them on a shelf. And it's non of anyone else's business.

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Not trying to be rude about this: but if you don't want to play the game by the rules, don't play.

On a little bit nicer tone: Most people won't care about HOW a model looks. Oh, all those bikers have powerswords on them? Who cares, as long as they ALL either do or don't. Not, "The one with the red dot does, and the rest don't." That just gets too hard to play and to hard to remember.

I do feel your pain from a modeling standpoint. I have a bunch of Black Templars that I modeled with a bolt pistol and chainsword, but I'm going to run them as standard marines, I want them to have a bolter, I don't want to remodel them all, and 100% of the people I play with (friends) don't care, and if I was in a store 90% wouldn't care, again as long as everything with a pistol and sword counted as the same something else.

Shrike325 wrote:Most people won't care about HOW a model looks. Oh, all those bikers have powerswords on them? Who cares, as long as they ALL either do or don't. Not, "The one with the red dot does, and the rest don't." That just gets too hard to play and to hard to remember.

I do feel your pain from a modeling standpoint. I have a bunch of Black Templars that I modeled with a bolt pistol and chainsword, but I'm going to run them as standard marines, I want them to have a bolter, I don't want to remodel them all, and 100% of the people I play with (friends) don't care, and if I was in a store 90% wouldn't care, again as long as everything with a pistol and sword counted as the same something else.

Quoted for emphasis, and this calls back to the point I made. If you've got a bunch of models equipped the same and you want them all to count as having different wargear, that's fine, because that's easy to remember.

But when you bring out a gaggle of random crap and say each model has x, y, and z, it gets confusing and frustrating for the people with whom you're playing.

I think this post hits the nail right on the head.

Shrike325 wrote:Not trying to be rude about this: but if you don't want to play the game by the rules, don't play.

Well I do find you rude, but what is so much worse is the arrogance and obtusity of that remark.

I am not the one who keeps changing the rules, Games Workshop is. GW has changed the rules 5 times now, and they will change them again, and make you buy them again. And if your favourite squad, or commander, or your whole army along with their entire race is suddenly 'left out' of the rules (as is the case for anyone who collected squats or slann), are you going to be happy about it? No you wouldn't be. And then to have some kid who is probably picking his nose with an Ultramarine right now, turn around and say...

"Woah! That's not in the RUUUUULEZ!! so you can't use it cheater! If you can't play by the rules... don't play"

Well that's just adding insult to injury.

Games workshop have stated hundreds of times in the past "the rules are just a framework" and they have published all manner of guidelines and articles in the past, for creating your own vehicles and characters... So for someone to say "if you don't want to play by the rules, don't play" It's as bad as saying "If you don't want to paint your marines as one of the official chapters... don't collect marines" it makes no sense whatsoever.

However all this is kind of moot because I don't really have any problem with "the rules" my major gripe is with the over simplified Army Lists that miss so much stuff out that it's leaves you having to ask your opponent about every minor customisation that really aught to be your choice.

For example: There is another topic running right now "Why is Terminator Sergeant stuck with Power sword?". I have no idea why he is stuck with a power sword, it is ridiculous and makes no sense, The same thing is in the BA codex... it might even be a copypasta mistake but it's official now so we're stuck with it. So you'd better obey or you run the risk of you and your army being ostracised by the entire gaming community! But it shouldn't be like that. In the first Codex Ultramarines the sergeant wasn't forced to take a power sword, he could if he wanted to... so could any other member of the squad.

The army list are there to prevent people taking extreme and unrealistic stuff like 10 Space Marine Captains with Las Cannons... They are not supposed to prevent your sergeant ditching his sword, or your scouts from carry autoguns. That isn't cheating, it's just personalising your army.

In any case if you take the time to read my post (which you quoted) you might spot that I stated clearly "I think I've heard enough now really. And I don't think I want to get back into gaming" So as for the whole 'not playing' part... I'm already way ahead of you.

Look, if you told me in a pick-up game, "hey, I have an old-style BA captain with AA, can I pay the extra X points from the plain jane marine codex to have it on him?", I'd probably be inclined to say yes. But you've also got to realize that you're asking a favor from me by deviating from RAW, not reclaiming your birthright.

I feel your pain, of course - anyone who's been playing since RT/2E has inevitably had models, perhaps many of them, become illegal or not terribly usable. I have a fair few 2E Havocs which are basically not worth putting out into the field anymore; my Iron Warriors lord with servo-arm is not even playable, either.

SmackCakes wrote:Games Workshop is. GW has changed the rules 5 times now

Yes, GAMES WORKSHOP changed the rules four times (created the rules with rogue trader, then there were four later editions). Not you.

I don't have any problem with houserules. But if you want to play by house rules, you need your opponent's permission to do so. And by the Emperor if you do not have a discussion with me about these houserules you want to play by BEFORE we begin playing, you are a cheater and I do not want to play with you. And that is exactly one of the situations the OP presented:

And lastly... can you just get away with this stuff without asking?

No. No you cannot. Would you want me to play as if every single model in my Sisters army had Sarissas (re-rolls on the charge) without asking, even though that's not possible in the rules? Or maybe I should really just include 500 more points in my list than you do but not tell you about it. Yeah, that's cheating. Unless you have your opponent's permission, doing this marks you as a cheater, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I had the same question about strictness at Ard Boyz, and each judge had a different ruling... I have two old school rhinos that I do not wish to destroy my modifying. how does WYSIWYG rule that the things are armed? two bolters=one storm bolter?

Todosi wrote:The models are fine. You just need to use a current codex and ALL of the rules therein. No mixing and matching from different codexes. I love seeing old models on the table, just be sure to tell me what they count as under the current rules!

Clear, correct, and to the point.

That's why we have this wonderful rule in 5th edition called Counts As. You can use old models if you want. They just have to count as something else if they aren't in the codex. IE, that sword counts as a close combat weapon (instead of a chainsword for example). Or that bolt pistol counts as a bolter. Etc. But you should tell your opponent and not try and confuse them. Writing it down would be helpful...

Melissia wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:Games Workshop is. GW has changed the rules 5 times now

Yes, GAMES WORKSHOP changed the rules four times (created the rules with rogue trader, then there were four later editions). Not you.

I don't have any problem with houserules. But if you want to play by house rules, you need your opponent's permission to do so. And by the Emperor if you do not have a discussion with me about these houserules you want to play by BEFORE we begin playing, you are a cheater and I do not want to play with you. And that is exactly one of the situations the OP presented:

I would never (and I believe I speak for the OP too) try to cheat you, or play any rule or model you hadn't OKed. I would have my entire army written down with points cost (for my own benefit as much as yours). I would have marked down stuff that you needed to okay... plus the points I have paid for it, and I would make sure I paid way more points than it was worth so you could be sure that I just added it for fluffiness, and not because I'm a WAAC cheater.

I would also be very open to any house rules you might want to use, or any variations you might want to try on the army list. Or if you want to play test a vehicle you had made up and you have no idea how many points it costs... I would be fine with that too. In fact I would probably prefer that to RAW game because it sounds more interesting.

And lastly... can you just get away with this stuff without asking?

No. No you cannot. Would you want me to play as if every single model in my Sisters army had Sarissas (re-rolls on the charge) without asking, even though that's not possible in the rules?

I think perhaps I phrased that badly, let me try again...

When you go into a cafe, or a place like McDonnalds. Do you ask if you can take a straw from the straw dispenser, or a pack of sugar from the table? I know that you can ask, but I don't think anyone expects you to, and if you were to go ahead and ask the answer would always be "Yes of course".

My question was if the same was true in games for minor customisations, assuming that you paid for them and had them written down on your army roster which your opponent had a copy of, and which they didn't take issue with... is it okay to assume it's okay? OR are people anal about every little RAW detail.

The resounding answer was that people are anal about every detail and not to assume anything.

As for "EVERY SINGLE MODEL" in your sisters army having Sarissas. I down't think that would qualify as 'minor' to a reasonable person. But I would probably be okay with it, so long as you paid a fair amount of points for it.

SmackCakes wrote:The resounding answer was that people are anal about every detail and not to assume anything.

Yes, because people don't like cheaters.

This is not McDonald's. McDonalds is there for your enjoyment (and to make money off of it like any other company). They serve you. The game is there for the enjoyment of BOTH players (and GW makes money off of this naturally). Your opponent isn't serving you-- the two are not comparable in the way you're attempting to compare.

If you would act so inconsiderate as to make changes to your army list that go against the rules and then not tell your opponent about it, you are indeed cheating and should not be surprised when people react poorly to it.

SmackCakes wrote:The resounding answer was that people are anal about every detail and not to assume anything.

That is correct.

However...

Rules lawyers would not exist if not for the hordes of people out there constantly trying to bend or get around the rules.

As for me personally, I'm pretty accepting of giving people leeway. Of course in a tournament environment you need to be strict, because everyone needs to be playing by exactly the same set of rules or it isn't fair, but if you show up at you local shop and play a game and some guy wants to pretend his burna's are something else, or try out something new that isn't in the rules at all, I'm generally willing to give it a go.

Part of this stems from when I FIRST started playing 40k. I had an army of space marines, and I was still quite young, maybe 14 years old at the time. I showed up at the store one afternoon and wanted to play, some guy said sure. I was playing Space Marines at the time and I asked if I could treat my flamers as something else, I don't really remember what even at this point to be honest. Instead of saying "sure" or even "No, i'd prefer we play WYSIWYG" he went off on me for 5 minutes about how I was breaking the rules, and "why don't you get a X if you want to use an X" and so on and so on. Basically, when you are a 30+ year old man yelling at a 14 year old over a table top game, you need to take a step back and look for a little perspective.

Smallcakes, the easiest answer is: Find a 2nd Edition (3rd? I'm not sure which era you played in) rulebook and get gaming. No one's making you play the current rules if you like the older ones, you can teach friends those rules, and it's not hard to find veterens who'll remember them.

@thread: Isn't there a rule about majority saves vs. shooting, meaning that a captain in a unit of sanguinary guard would have a 2+ save, as long as the sanguinary guard outnumbered him?

Ktulhut wrote:@thread: Isn't there a rule about majority saves vs. shooting, meaning that a captain in a unit of sanguinary guard would have a 2+ save, as long as the sanguinary guard outnumbered him?

No, that's why you allocate wounds before rolling your saves, so you can factor in different armor/inv saves.

Was there ever a rule like that? I'm going to have some stern words with my regular opponents now.

SmackCakes wrote:
Well I do find you rude, but what is so much worse is the arrogance and obtusity of that remark.

I am not the one who keeps changing the rules, Games Workshop is. GW has changed the rules 5 times now, and they will change them again, and make you buy them again. And if your favourite squad, or commander, or your whole army along with their entire race is suddenly 'left out' of the rules (as is the case for anyone who collected squats or slann), are you going to be happy about it? No you wouldn't be. And then to have some kid who is probably picking his nose with an Ultramarine right now, turn around and say...

"Woah! That's not in the RUUUUULEZ!! so you can't use it cheater! If you can't play by the rules... don't play"

Well that's just adding insult to injury.

Games workshop have stated hundreds of times in the past "the rules are just a framework" and they have published all manner of guidelines and articles in the past, for creating your own vehicles and characters... So for someone to say "if you don't want to play by the rules, don't play" It's as bad as saying "If you don't want to paint your marines as one of the official chapters... don't collect marines" it makes no sense whatsoever.

However all this is kind of moot because I don't really have any problem with "the rules" my major gripe is with the over simplified Army Lists that miss so much stuff out that it's leaves you having to ask your opponent about every minor customisation that really aught to be your choice.

For example: There is another topic running right now "Why is Terminator Sergeant stuck with Power sword?". I have no idea why he is stuck with a power sword, it is ridiculous and makes no sense, The same thing is in the BA codex... it might even be a copypasta mistake but it's official now so we're stuck with it. So you'd better obey or you run the risk of you and your army being ostracised by the entire gaming community! But it shouldn't be like that. In the first Codex Ultramarines the sergeant wasn't forced to take a power sword, he could if he wanted to... so could any other member of the squad.

The army list are there to prevent people taking extreme and unrealistic stuff like 10 Space Marine Captains with Las Cannons... They are not supposed to prevent your sergeant ditching his sword, or your scouts from carry autoguns. That isn't cheating, it's just personalising your army.

In any case if you take the time to read my post (which you quoted) you might spot that I stated clearly "I think I've heard enough now really. And I don't think I want to get back into gaming" So as for the whole 'not playing' part... I'm already way ahead of you.

Right, if you read the rest of my post you would realize that I said you could model your army however you wanted and play with the current rules set. I'm sorry that your current captain or favorite model isn't WYSIWYG but, again, 90% of players won't care. The point everyone is making in this whole thread is that most don't even care if you want to take something from an old list and use it. But you would have to ask if it's ok with them .

What you're asking to do is come to a game of Chess with all your Pawns really being Queens... because that's the pieces you have (yes, this is an extreme example). I'm saying I don't care if your PIECES are Queens, just play them as Pawns.

Ktulhut wrote:Was there ever a rule like that? I'm going to have some stern words with my regular opponents now.

Yep. I actually had a small argument with a player at my FLGS about exactly this. I opened the rulebook and showed him the fun little diagram that shows successful to-wound rolls being allocated to models in a unit with different equipment/independent characters in the shooting phase for armor saves. The rulebook is pretty specific about how and when you allocate wounds - you just gotta know where to look. And naturally, I can't remember where it was, I think it was in the shooting rules. FYI, using the condensed AoBR rulebook.

It's always worth asking if you can use a previous edition's codex. For the fluff Jockeys you can always say they came out of a warp rifle from who knows how long ago. Or just use it in friendly games. *shrugs*

Frazzled wrote:

Todosi wrote:The models are fine. You just need to use a current codex and ALL of the rules therein. No mixing and matching from different codexes. I love seeing old models on the table, just be sure to tell me what they count as under the current rules!

Clear, correct, and to the point.

Amen brother Frazz!

Melissa wrote:That's why we have this wonderful rule in 5th edition called Counts As. You can use old models if you want. They just have to count as something else if they aren't in the codex. IE, that sword counts as a close combat weapon (instead of a chainsword for example). Or that bolt pistol counts as a bolter. Etc. But you should tell your opponent and not try and confuse them. Writing it down would be helpful...

This is how I play it. I have many, many, many models from 2nd edition when I started playing 40k. I took a hiatus that lasted right up to 5th edition. Lo and behold, many of the marine, eldar, and ork models I own are not exactly what players would call "codex". That doesn't mean I can't use them, but I don't use my 2nd ed codeci, I find the closest match to the model in 5th edition and use the rules for that entry exclusively. When the model's wargear doesn't quite match up (Banshees with laspistols, for example, or my Librarian Epistolary with a melta pistol) the model becomes "counts as" and I explain what's what to my opponent. The important thing is if you're playing a 5th edition game, use the most recent codeci for the army you're playing and communicate with your opponent if you think there might be inconcsistencies in your WYSIWYG.

In the last tourney I played, I used rhinos for razorbacks and not a single player objected. It never hurts to ask if it's okay and I was fully prepared to run the rhinos as rhinos if I got any flak from it.

SaintHazard wrote:
Yep. I actually had a small argument with a player at my FLGS about exactly this. I opened the rulebook and showed him the fun little diagram that shows successful to-wound rolls being allocated to models in a unit with different equipment/independent characters in the shooting phase for armor saves. The rulebook is pretty specific about how and when you allocate wounds - you just gotta know where to look. And naturally, I can't remember where it was, I think it was in the shooting rules. FYI, using the condensed AoBR rulebook.

Oh, good to know I'm not just losing it. I'll trawl through the mini-rulebook next time I see it. Kinda halfway through moving house atm though. :(