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.

Where in the Rule book can I find the Restriction stating Models can not be modified from stock?

JinxDragon wrote:
Where in the Rule book can I find the Restriction stating Models can not be modified from stock?

It is a permissive ruleset, you have to find a rule allowing modifications, not 'It doesn't say I can't'...

Easily Found:
The very beginning of the Rule section informs us that we have permission to field Models produced by Game Workshop....

So I ask again:
So where is that permission revoked if the model is positioned differently then stock?

Wjat permission do you have to assemble the model differently to have GW say (i.e what permission do you have to use a non-GW model). Once you assemble differently to GWs instructions it is no longer a GW model.

I can't help but think it doesn't matter how you model it. you could make an awesome heldrake with an enormous tentacle hanging underneath that pivots all the way round. still has a hull mounted weapon, as per the rules, so you fire the weapon as hull mounted. if the heldrake's been modified to look a different direction, it fires as a hull mounted weapon, forwards. if you've glued the flamer to its arse as a joke, it fires as a hull mounted weapon, forwards.

is it so hard to believe? models and rules are separate. the rules are set in stone (which is why they didn't correct the mistakes) but the models can be changed. I've got trukk conversions where the big shoota is hull mounted, but the rules have it as turret mounted. so i fire it as a turret mounted weapon. if someone complains, I slap them and tell them to stop b*tching, it's a conversion for looks not advantage, deal with it.

So the assembly instruction pictures are now Rules as Written?

Still the individual pieces which make up a Model are designed with a degree of flexibility in their positioning. The only Written instructions that seem to matter are at the very beginning of the assembly, informing us what tools we will need and a few other things. Interestingly none of the instructions require us to bring measuring tools so we can determine if a piece is off center. None of these written sections, and none of the pictures, require any measuring of angles or pitches to ensure that the individual parts are being 'assembled correctly.' In fact these pictures show us nothing more then Tab A enters slot A, so as long as the model hasn't got Tab B in Slot A it is hard to call shenanigans based on the instructions having been violated.

In the case of a Heldrake:
It is easy to position the Baleflamer, without doing more then putting the joints together as described, so it is at 11 or 10 o'clock instead of 12... and probably a lot harder to use tactically because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some Bloke,
It would be nice if they did that for all Vehicle mounted Weapons, maybe create some sort of Mounting Type classification, instead of the 'look at the Model' design that the Rules currently favour.

So the assembly instruction pictures are now Rules as Written? 

Unless you either have permission to use non-GW models or to modify GW models then yes RaW.

In the case of a Heldrake:
It is easy to position the Baleflamer, without doing more then putting the joints together as described, so it is at 11 or 10 o'clock instead of 12... and probably a lot harder to use tactically because of it.

This is allowed, building it so it moves freely in its mount is not. It is the very definition of MFA which is against the rules.

Given that this side debate formed over a model that was positioned as I described, I am failing to see where a problem is right now.

Still, to continue it, I do have to wonder about the assembly instructions being cemented Rules as Written as they are secondary instructions without any writing at all. Without the Rulebook giving direct reference to the secondary documents as a source of Rule information, it becomes gray to state that any document we turn up with can be considered 'official' and this is more accurate for those documents printed decades ago. That isn't even touching onto the fact that they are still pictures and all the confusions and issues that can stem from that. There are already a great deal of people whom point out that pictures are not good evidence of Rules, many are in error because looking good is more important then being accurate. Others will point out that a picture might be better then a thousand words, but that they can still be so easily misunderstood as a thousand words.

So while I personally don't like obvious model changes designed for specific advantages as much as the next person, I can't exactly call shenanigans when a Model turns up looking a little off from default and only can decide if I want to continue with the game for myself...
However, if they try and change configuration mid-game then I will prevent them on grounds that permission is lacking to do so.

JinxDragon wrote:

Some Bloke,
It would be nice if they did that for all Vehicle mounted Weapons, maybe create some sort of Mounting Type classification, instead of the 'look at the Model' design that the Rules currently favour.

I thought they had done this with the heldrake, by stating the gun is a hull mounted weapon. they don't say "the gun is a hull mounted weapon unless otherwise mounted", they just say it's a hull mounted weapon. the diagram shows that the hull mounted weapon is measured with a 45 degree arc facing forward. They even put the gun on the model facing at an angle, to show that it still points forward!. so do whatever you want with the gun, mount it on a turret if you want, but then we ask the question:

"How do I determine the Arc of sight for a Heldrakes ranged weapon?"

and the FAQ answers

"Treat the Heldrake's weapon as a hullmounted weapon, measuring all ranges and line of sight from the barrel of the gun."

so it looks like a turret? treat it as hull mounted. the heldrakes neck can move? treat it as hull mounted. the heldrakes neck is sticking vertically upwards with 8 heads creating a circle of weapons to be fired? Treat it as hull mounted

ergo, it is impossible to model a Heldrake for advantage, as no matter what you do to the model, You treat the weapon as hull mounted

so do whatever you want to it, have a chaos-converted Marbo standing on top wielding a heavy flamer hooked up to a huge promethium tank screaming "Remember me B*tches?", and oh look, it's hull mounted.

You also measure line of sight and range from the barrel of the gun.

Where on the hull is it?

Really these twisted views to bend every word as written and mess with the rules is what has caused such a stir... GW must get emails about questions and laugh hysterically.
When in doubt use this....
"Rules are for men of Ordinary Understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; their meaning is not to be sought for metaphysical subtleties"

The helldrake and its bale flamer are in a specific spot on the model.. If someone mounted elsewhere I would still count line of site and range from its models DESIGNATE mounting point (Where GW pictures and models says it should be).

That's splendid.

HIWPI is fine, but isn't always RAW.

Yeah, again the model shows were it goes. For hardheaded people the instructions show you were to put the baleflamer. Every picture of art shows where the flamer comes from... Not really sure how much cut and dry GW could of made it for it you.

Please See the "common sense" part of the following phrase i'll share a second time.
"Rules are for men of Ordinary Understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; their meaning is not to be sought for metaphysical subtleties"


Either way I am the OP, and the topic was whether or not it had the turret rule taken away. Thats been determined, Thanks all for the input. CHEERS!

Tsilber wrote:
Yeah, again the model shows were it goes. For hardheaded people the instructions show you were to put the baleflamer. Every picture of art shows where the flamer comes from... Not really sure how much cut and dry GW could of made it for it you.

Please See the "common sense" part of the following phrase i'll share a second time.
"Rules are for men of Ordinary Understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; their meaning is not to be sought for metaphysical subtleties"


Either way I am the OP, and the topic was whether or not it had the turret rule taken away. Thats been determined, Thanks all for the input. CHEERS!

Yeah, your pseudo intellectual quote wasn't really relevant to the discussion at hand the first time, and the fact you feel compelled to re-quote comes across as more than a tad patronising.

The issue at hand, that your OP triggered a discussion on, and that you've been too busy Googling quotes to spot, is how one preserves the ability of someone to invest time and effort into making their model unique, I'd contend an equally important part of the hobby to gaming, and where the line is when the core rules are so totally wooly when it comes to weapon placement and fire arcs.

While the Heldrake has been the focus, it could easily be any converted vehicle.

It has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense would dictate that one follows the rules, and calculates range, LOS and fire arc based on the position of the weapon on the model, not spend time digging through back issues of WD or looking pictures up online to see where the weapon should be and then guessing some random point in space where the weapon isn't to then calculate from.

But then, judging by some of the stunningly pro-GW posts I've seen your user name attached to, I'm guessing anyone who displays any degree of creativity or individualism in their pursuit of the HHHobby probably needs to be drummed out as a heretic in your view anyway, so why out effort into writing rules which don't get utterly fethed over because someone has the temerity to build their model in a pose they think looks cool?

You can flex your internet muscles all you like, you can try to be clever by adding all sorts of useless insults to add substance to your exploitation of the rules. It neither offends or impresses me. i under stand you're mad... But In the end don't be mad at me if you can't follow instructions while putting models together.
And not sure what my Pro-GW post have to do with anything. Seems like you are just swinging in the dark now, desperately trying to grab at anything to add any substance to your points of view or add credence to your argument.

Toy soldiers, folks.

Seriously.