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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Biomancy, Iron Arm.
A 5+ invulnerable isnt great when facing instant death on a 200+ point character

Which is a random roll, not something they can just pick. So you have no sure way of having it. Although they can take catalyst and give themselves FNP, which is nice but doesn't work against force weapons.

A 5+ is better then no chance.

No, Hive Tyrants cannot "pick" Catalyst.

 HoverBoy wrote:
So then GWs own design team has clearly broken the rules because this has clearly not followed the assembly instructions that come with the model.

Thats not completely true. The assembly instructions of the riptide clearly states how to cut up the pins to model it freely.

There is still no instructions on how to assemble a "legal" model in another pose.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, Hive Tyrants cannot "pick" Catalyst.

Yeah must have fallen back into 2nd ed thinking for a minute. Thanks for the catch.

And why would anyone design a troop transport where your troops jump out in front of the 3 tl bolters on either side ?
See LR crusader ! But the instructions say to build it like that !

Rocket_Launcher wrote:
And why would anyone design a troop transport where your troops jump out in front of the 3 tl bolters on either side ?

Why would anyone build a tank with no suspension, zero ground clearance, and a turret that doesn't actually have space for everything that supposedly fits in it? Nobody sane, of course, but that didn't stop GW from making the LRBT.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
By that logic the rules do not give you permission to assemble the models. At least not in my copy of the rulebook.

The rules tell you to use the appropriate model. The model comes with instructions that tell you how to assemble it. There is nothing unclear about this.

Well, not all models come with instructions. With a fair number of them you will get a picture (blister) and others (white box) you won't even get that and will need to refer to the website.

Compounding this is that various models give different viable areas for placing things. For example, the land raider can be physically modeled with the sponsons towards the front or back without modifying the parts. Even the Baneblade has 3 different points on each side to attach its sponsons. Quite frankly there are positive and negative impacts to the choice of each individual position and as such, it simply shouldn't matter.

If GW provided all of the options for a given unit within each box then I'd say a unit has to be built as the box instructions (if any) dictate. But they don't. Simple example is a DE Archon. The *only* option in the blister is a head choice; even though the game gives a wide variety of available wargear. Quite frankly there are extremely few boxes that do ship with all options available which necessitates "kit bashing" in order to get things like a full unit of truborn with blasters or an Archon accurately modeled with the actual wargear in use.

Next, GW claims to be a model company first, and the game is secondary as simply something to do with your model collection. They commonly (as in every.single.month) show conversions on their website and in their magazine. All of this points to the "intention" that there is a pretty wide latitude with how to assemble and use these things.

My point is simply: GW has a fairly large collection of models in different positions ranging from prone to standing on things. They encourage both kit bashing and simple conversions on their website, in print media, and in the full big rule book. They don't provide a representative model for every available unit and for the ones they do provide, they usually do not provide all of the possible options.

In short, GW has created a situation in which EITHER kit bashing and conversions is absolutely required in order to even begin to play the game OR you cannot use units that are not visually equipped with the parts from the box you bought for that model, which would invalidate over half of the product line... probably more.

To that end: No, I do not believe assembly instructions are rules by any stretch of the imagination. If they were then there wouldn't be much of a game left to play.

This is treading into OT waters slightly, but what about basing too? Other than glueing your model straight onto a clear base, there are often no other indications. Yet there are many models mounted onto large stylish bases, some giving a good distance of clearance for the model and making it taller than it should be. Does this count too then as MFA?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yes and no. The rules are written with the assumption and expectation that the models will be assembled (mostly) as intended, although with some latitude expected for conversions.

This. Proper assembly of models should go hand in hand with following the rules. There is, in my opinion, some leeway with how a model is assembled when the instructions are vague or allow for multiple options. With that being said, because so many of 40k's rules are based on how a model actually appears, or the space it takes up, or where weapons are placed, it is important to have a baseline of how a model should look if assembled properly. I could generally care not whether your Stormbolter is modeled on the left top hatch or right top hatch near the front of the Rhino (kit depending; looking at you SoB Rhinos), but as soon as it is placed someplace else on the Rhino, I take issue.

When assembly instructions are not followed, I personally take into account why they weren't. The instructions don't always have contingencies to deal with all options, or one has to kit-bash to make what would otherwise be a legal option. Is this being done to look "good" or "cool" or simply MFA? How much, if any, does this affect game play? Given what kits we have seen GW/FW release with similar options/appearance, is what is in front of me something GW would/could conceivably release as a model? These factors and more are what I consider when dealing with "deviations" from the assembly instructions/conversions.

 doc1234 wrote:
This is treading into OT waters slightly, but what about basing too? Other than glueing your model straight onto a clear base, there are often no other indications. Yet there are many models mounted onto large stylish bases, some giving a good distance of clearance for the model and making it taller than it should be. Does this count too then as MFA?

As far as modeling your miniatures on really cool bases it says in the rulebook to go over with your opponent on how to treat the model for the purposes of los and cover saves.

The instructions only apply to non-Orks!!!!

There's definitely leeway for conversions (I saw a guy construct his crisis suits like spider mechs, very cool), but I have no tolerance for deliberately modifying models to gain an advantage that shouldn't exist.
For example, what would people think if I snipped off the crown of an Annihilation Barge (making it easier to hide) and added an extra 6 inches to the barrels (increasing its range). No tournament would let that through the door.
It's even worse if a person tries such tricks at a local gaming store. How out of control does your ego have to be to necessitate such tactics in a friendly game?
Conversions are nifty, especially when well done. It allows people to show off more then just tactical skills and (for many people) is the entire point of the hobby. Just don't try any funny stuff.

@ Loopy:
Looted Wagon out of a Monolith. No rule says you can't

 Loopy wrote:
The instructions only apply to non-Orks!!!!

Page 88 of Ork codex clearly has GW urging players to make conversions.

Not sure if it is specific to Orks, but Orks are permitted to convert models and kitbash various kits to make unique models.

With regards to the ability to position weapons at the forward or rear hatches on the LR, well its up to the player, the weapons fit in either position without modification, and there have been plenty of LR, LRR, LRC etc in White Dwarf magazines with the guns at the front position.

I agree with Taow, and the statement that the rather scant instructions given with GW models are "rules" is pathetic. If we take that to the ultimate limit then does that mean I can only use a certain DC shoulder pad with my Thunder Hammer equipped DC trooper, and only the helmet, upper, and lower bodies shown in that particular picture?

There is plenty of variation with 'Stock' models. For instance I've recently bought 2 sets of 3rd ed Space Hulk GS. These are of varying heights and the bases are mostly rectangular. I did buy them because they are far and away the best looking GS/Nids available.

I’m not about to ruin them by mounting them on normal bases- but if anyone had a problem playing them I would pull out the regular GS.

i woudl say the instructions are there so that anyone can build the model and make it look "right". but there is scope and a certain latitude for conversions - just look atthe number of defiler that are assembled as bipedal robots.

I personally always put Land raider sponsons in the front "door" slots. Mostly because i though that the soldier jumpign out of a door in front of the massive lascannon seemed bit stupid.

I have to agree Praxis, and it makes more sense.

Taow wrote:
The fact that this thread is even happening is the problem with both the game and the internet.

And here we had been going so well. There is absolutely no call for this sort of behavior.

If you have something useful to contribute, then by all means do so. But there is no reason to disparage people for attempting to find out what people think. Surprisingly, 23% of respondents seem to believe that under some circumstances, the assembly instructions DO count as rules, which is way, WAY higher than I had predicted. That in and of itself validates the creation of this thread. If you dislike the opinion of one side or the other, then there is still no reason for mud-slinging at a thread or at posters aiming to find out how many people hold those opinions. If you have nothing but rude comments to contribute, then I am sure you can find an active thread in the off-topic forum to engage in, but please, don't do it here.

They constitute rules insofar as you can't mount a land raidrs sponsons on the roof for example.

When it comes to placement of things like HK launchers,, havoc launchers, additional bolter, smoke launchers etc it is more up to the modeller.

On an infantry level - if the assembly affected the rules then you would have to model every marine with bolter, pistol and grenades. it would be WYSIWYG gone mad.

I understand the confusion here, but this really just opens up an enormous can of worms.

This whole thing can be resolved by a simple MFA check. If you think someone moved parts of a model to a different area so as to improve it's ability in combat, or reduce it's profile for better cover, then all you have to do is ask them to field it as the normal model appears. If they say no, then you know what their intention was to begin with.

Conversions are a huge part of this game, and permission is not only implied, it's granted and encouraged. They go well out of their way to show off cool stuff they (and you! Go spend money kids!) can do with the models, and sometimes there's a wide variance of poses available just on the base model, without even having to pull out the Xacto and pins.

Attempting to stifle the creativity of this scene is a death knell that even GW can see a mile away, thus they'll never do it. So when you encounter "that guy" who threw his lascannon sponsons up on top of his tank for better firing LOS, handle it like you'd handle any MFA debate, but to apply a ruleset like - as pictured or else - is way too far a line to draw.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rocket_Launcher wrote:
And why would anyone design a troop transport where your troops jump out in front of the 3 tl bolters on either side ?

Why would anyone build a tank with no suspension, zero ground clearance, and a turret that doesn't actually have space for everything that supposedly fits in it? Nobody sane, of course, but that didn't stop GW from making the LRBT.

Correct. There is no logic to 40k vehicle designs. On the LRC if I assemble it with the TL hurricane bolters on front, which actually gains me a couple of inches when shooting, am I illegal or not? If I assemble my redeemer with the flamer sponsors in the back, actually loosing a couple of inches when I place my templates am I illegal?

I believe that using common logic can solve most conversion problems but common logic and 40k don't go hand by hand.

i would be more interested in peoples opinion on things like the new tau flyer. Its quite possible to model the bomber with the markerlight and missile pod switched. I'm not sure about the fighter, but I assume you could put the quad turret under the nose too if you wanted.

Would that be legal. I would like to think so since I think it looks far less horrid having a missile pod sticking out the back of my plane.

For the majority of weapons placement I don't have a problem. If it is physically possible to mount the weapon in that location without modification of the parts, such as on the LR variants, and the Tau vehicle, whats the problem?

If it is a major modification like putting the LR weapons on top of the hull, well thats different I guess, but it does have drawbacks, like making the model harder to hide in cover from those pesky melta guns etc.