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.

How exactly are the rules for this done?

Can a blood crusher "proxy" be put on a calvary base? Can daemon princes be so small as to get cover from a space marine? There were issues about this at the tournament I attended over the weekend and would like to get the dakka community's opinion on this.

The first is just wrong.

The second could be called 'modeling for advantage', and truthfully, what is the model? If it's space marine size, no. If it's Belakor, then it's a GW demon prince model that happens to be a bit short.

I think the model he was using was from the fantasy line. It was from that campaign fantasy had after the eye of terror campaign. It looked like an earth elemental that he attached wings to. Barely larger than a space marine and he was getting his 4+ cover from everything i threw at him. Same with his cold ones he was using as a proxy without even changing the bases.

I just want to know where the line is drawn according to the rules so i know what to expect for the finals. I've never had to deal with modeling for advantage on that scale before and want to know if it's the norm.

Are Monsterous Creatures even allowed to claim cover saves from infantry?

Its not the norm. Its generally frowned upon or worse. If its a GW mini representing what its suppose, but is older or just smaller its fair. I play a couple of armies with a number of Rogue Trader models I've had for all these years and I've had the unintended advantage.

Its only with "count-as" and special conversions, that distort the heights that its really cheating.

dereksatkinson wrote:I think the model he was using was from the fantasy line. It was from that campaign fantasy had after the eye of terror campaign. It looked like an earth elemental that he attached wings to. Barely larger than a space marine and he was getting his 4+ cover from everything i threw at him. Same with his cold ones he was using as a proxy without even changing the bases.

The only rules regarding 'counts as' that I know of are that it has to be mostly GW model parts (this may be a holdover rule or only in certain tourneys) and that it has to be placed on the base the model comes with. If someone is using Cold Ones from the Dark Elf/Lizardmen line, it is a 100% GW model with a square base, nothing really in the rules against it. If someone is using a GW model that 'counts as' a demon prince and is visually recognizable as being something that could represent a demon prince in a WYSIWYG fashion, there's not really anything breaking the rules.

dereksatkinson wrote:I just want to know where the line is drawn according to the rules so i know what to expect for the finals. I've never had to deal with modeling for advantage on that scale before and want to know if it's the norm.

Modeling for advantage is a relatively new subject (well, since 5th ed) and often is not done to excessive proportions. Some people toss out "what ifs" of modeling a Wraithlord to be lying on its belly in a sniper position or a Trygon slithering across the ground in order to get easy cover saves, but I've honestly never seen or heard of this done in actual play.

That said, some models are simply smaller than others, especially the further back in years you go in the GW/Citadel line of models. Space Marines, especially Terminators, are significantly larger both in model and in base size (in the case of Termies) than they used to be. Look at poor little Abaddon, for instance. Even as far as official Monstrous Creatures go, the Eldar Avatar of Khaine is barely larger than a Terminator and it's the only (non-FW) model available for it, but it gets a cover save from Grots.

Bunker wrote:Are Monsterous Creatures even allowed to claim cover saves from infantry?

Monstrous Creatures gain a cover save from anything that visually obscures 50% of the model. In the above case of the Eldar Avatar, it's very easy to do so with basic infantry. In other cases such as a Hive Tyrant or Carnifex, it often takes larger infantry such as Tyranid Warriors to do so. Demon Princes vary greatly in size depending on the model so some could claim obscurity from a Space Marine, others from a Rhino.

dereksatkinson wrote:I think the model he was using was from the fantasy line. It was from that campaign fantasy had after the eye of terror campaign. It looked like an earth elemental that he attached wings to. Barely larger than a space marine and he was getting his 4+ cover from everything i threw at him. Same with his cold ones he was using as a proxy without even changing the bases.

I just want to know where the line is drawn according to the rules so i know what to expect for the finals. I've never had to deal with modeling for advantage on that scale before and want to know if it's the norm.

Having played him (and feeling much better about my loss now that he is going to finals. lol), did he use the cold ones as crushers? Because when I played him at prelims, the Cold Ones were fiends and I thought that model was appropriate.

I did think the DPs were small, but were pretty cool models so never worried about it. It's a fenbeast from the Albion campaign.

Here's a link from the net of the model with some fantasy models next to it for comparison:

pretre wrote:Having played him (and feeling much better about my loss now that he is going to finals. lol), did he use the cold ones as crushers? Because when I played him at prelims, the Cold Ones were fiends and I thought that model was appropriate.

I'm trying not to make a big stink out of it pretre. I don't want to be a poor sport but 2/3 of his deepstrikes with those fiends either landed WAY close to his models or would have been off the board if he had used the bases from the fiends of slaanesh. He turned the bases sideways to avoid touching his own models or the board edge and the placed the other models lengthwise. As it was, he was able to place all 6 models and not have to roll on the mishap table. Either way, I don't have hard feelings about it but want to make sure I know what the actual rules are for the next round. That is why I asked in the way I did. I just want to know what is legal and what isn't.

Bunker wrote:Are Monsterous Creatures even allowed to claim cover saves from infantry?

Should terrain or models cover 50% or more of its body (limbs, torso, not wings, weapons or standards), then yes. It's one of the reasons gargoyles might be useful in a nids list, since their wings are so voluminous.

dereksatkinson wrote:
I'm trying not to make a big stink out of it pretre. I don't want to be a poor sport but 2/3 of his deepstrikes with those fiends either landed WAY close to his models or would have been off the board if he had used the bases from the fiends of slaanesh. He turned the bases sideways to avoid touching his own models or the board edge and the placed the other models lengthwise. As it was, he was able to place all 6 models and not have to roll on the mishap table. Either way, I don't have hard feelings about it but want to make sure I know what the actual rules are for the next round. That is why I asked in the way I did. I just want to know what is legal and what isn't.

Wow. I never knew what the Fiend model looked like until now. Yeah, they might have been a bit short. Although the straight up fiends are an ugly-ass model. Yuck.

pretre wrote:Wow. I never knew what the Fiend model looked like until now. Yeah, they might have been a bit short. Although the straight up fiends are an ugly-ass model. Yuck.

If you are allowed to model for advantage, the models themselves weren't the issue. But if you are required to use the same bases then yeah.. it wasn't right. Live and learn..

This isnt the first time crushers were modeled on bases smaller then what they come with at ard boyz

It's a pretty legit advantage. It allows you to deepstrike far more aggressively than you would otherwise be able to.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:This isnt the first time crushers were modeled on bases smaller then what they come with at ard boyz

Wait.. so it's ok to do this?

What if i used britonian knights, painted them red and said they were "counts as" blood crushers? What would be legal?

A good general rule of thumb is that whatever counts-as model you're using should be on the same base as the "real" model, and be roughly the same size overall.

Anything else, and you're asking for trouble.

As long as people are worried about controversial bases, I have seven fiends and five of them are the 1st or 2nd generation fiends which were mounted on the old slotted cavalry bases. And if someone had a set of 1st edition fiends, those things could probably hide behind a wall of troops, they are that short.

And wait until August and the Seekers on biker bases come out, and there'll be a second unit of Daemons that legitimately comes on biker/cavalry bases, with no guidance in the rules for how to make a circle using rectangles.

dereksatkinson wrote:

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:This isnt the first time crushers were modeled on bases smaller then what they come with at ard boyz

Wait.. so it's ok to do this?

What if i used britonian knights, painted them red and said they were "counts as" blood crushers? What would be legal?

No its not ok to do it. I mean it is, but only in friendly games where you have opponents permission.

I do believe that all old edition models should be mounted on at least the current bases. My LGS has a box of used models for sale, and I could have picked up ye olden tyrant, the one thats about the size of a space marine terminator. I dont think many people would be happy about mini swarmlord running around.

solkan wrote:As long as people are worried about controversial bases, I have seven fiends and five of them are the 1st or 2nd generation fiends which were mounted on the old slotted cavalry bases. And if someone had a set of 1st edition fiends, those things could probably hide behind a wall of troops, they are that short.

1st edition bases don't matter. The same issue came up with old school terminators now being required to be based on the larger bases.

solkan wrote:And wait until August and the Seekers on biker bases come out, and there'll be a second unit of Daemons that legitimately comes on biker/cavalry bases, with no guidance in the rules for how to make a circle using rectangles.

The seekers I have came with both calvary and circular bases. Since i use them for 40k they go on the circular bases.

pretre wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:I think the model he was using was from the fantasy line. It was from that campaign fantasy had after the eye of terror campaign. It looked like an earth elemental that he attached wings to. Barely larger than a space marine and he was getting his 4+ cover from everything i threw at him. Same with his cold ones he was using as a proxy without even changing the bases.

I just want to know where the line is drawn according to the rules so i know what to expect for the finals. I've never had to deal with modeling for advantage on that scale before and want to know if it's the norm.

Having played him (and feeling much better about my loss now that he is going to finals. lol), did he use the cold ones as crushers? Because when I played him at prelims, the Cold Ones were fiends and I thought that model was appropriate.

I did think the DPs were small, but were pretty cool models so never worried about it. It's a fenbeast from the Albion campaign.

A Fenbeast is large enough that it could rep a Demon Prince, especially a nurgly one. A monstrous creature needs to be oscured by 50% or more to claim a cover save, it doesn't matter by what.

If he was using Cold Ones as "Fiends", that's a pretty acceptable proxy/"counts as" I'd say. Also using cavalry bases should be fine too since that's what they are packaged with and some players use their demons for both fantasy and 40k. Being "a tad shorter" than the fiends isn't really that much of an issue I'd say, and I'd argue that they are roughly the same size. Those fiends are on a 40mm base in the picture shown above. They aren't that big.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:This isnt the first time crushers were modeled on bases smaller then what they come with at ard boyz

Polonius wrote:It's a pretty legit advantage. It allows you to deepstrike far more aggressively than you would otherwise be able to.

We are talking about FIENDS using cavalry bases, not CRUSHERS. Don't stir up drama where there is none.

whitedragon wrote:Those fiends are on a 40mm base in the picture shown above. They aren't that big.

They are enough of a difference that he couldn't have place the center model twice if he used them.

I wasn't trying to make a stink, I want to know what is allowed and what isn't. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus far i'm getting a pretty big variation in what's kosher and what's not.

dereksatkinson wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Those fiends are on a 40mm base in the picture shown above. They aren't that big.

They are enough of a difference that he couldn't have place the center model twice if he used them.

I wasn't trying to make a stink, I want to know what is allowed and what isn't. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus far i'm getting a pretty big variation in what's kosher and what's not.

There is a big variation, you are correct.

And even if he was using the actual fiend models, he could have put them on cavalry bases as well, since that's what they are supplied with.

whitedragon wrote:And even if he was using the actual fiend models, he could have put them on cavalry bases as well, since that's what they are supplied with.

You are thinking of seekers. The fiends are actually put on bases the size of 2 of the Calvary bases. I own some of the real models so i'm positive on this.

dereksatkinson wrote:

solkan wrote:As long as people are worried about controversial bases, I have seven fiends and five of them are the 1st or 2nd generation fiends which were mounted on the old slotted cavalry bases. And if someone had a set of 1st edition fiends, those things could probably hide behind a wall of troops, they are that short.

1st edition bases don't matter. The same issue came up with old school terminators now being required to be based on the larger bases.

And I can counter that the rulebook says to use the base that the figure came with, so that rebasing the old model is actually worse than leaving it as is.

solkan wrote:And wait until August and the Seekers on biker bases come out, and there'll be a second unit of Daemons that legitimately comes on biker/cavalry bases, with no guidance in the rules for how to make a circle using rectangles.

The seekers I have came with both calvary and circular bases. Since i use them for 40k they go on the circular bases.

And, I can argue against that for two points. The first, the model came with a rectangular base (which cavalry models in the book are depicted on), so the rectangular base is just as valid as the 40mm circle.
And on top of that, the Diaz Seekers have the metal tab for fitting into the slotted cavalry base, I can not be both adequately expressive and polite to tell you my negative opinion of taking that sort of model and trying to put it on the 40mm bases. Nothing in the '40K Ard Boyz Rules 2010 PDF' requires or even suggests that models be based on the most recent edition of a model, or explains what to do if a model is supplied with two different bases.

Now, if you really want an argument, I have six beasts of Nurgle. My three 1st edition one came without bases, my 2nd edition (the triangle heads) came on a rectangular base, my two 3rd edition (current) ones came on the 60mm large bases, and the blister packs I see in the stores now have 40mm round bases. So I could walk into a store, put down a unit with four different models on four different bases--rectangular cavalry, no base, 40mm round and 60mm round--all to represent Beasts of Nurgle in the same unit and say "That's what was in the blister pack at the time I bought it, and the book says I have to use it that way."

My 3rd edition deamon prince is pretty small for a MC. His head height is only about 50% taller than a normal marine. Sometimes in a tournament newer players who never played 3rd ed question if it's a GW and/or where I got it, but it's more out of curiosity than any form of hostility. Older figures just happen to be smaller.



As far as using "Counts as" in a tournament the answer is no, but conversions are ok.

WISIWYG is what separates "Counts as" from conversions.

Just throwing cold ones on the table and calling them bloodcrushers is clear "Counts as" Cone ones for bloodcrushers won't fly, but bloodletters mounted on cold ones can be called a conversion (a difficult conversion to boot). If the parts and pieces are GW, and it's easily recognizable as a blood crusher then it's a conversion. Personally I think building a mechanical exoskeleton over a bloodletter using parts and pieces from ork killer cans would look good for bloodcrushers conversions.

From http://www.solegends.com/citcat912/c20255rcslfiends-m.htm, the 1st edition Fiend of Slaanesh, for those arguing along at home:

How many years has the Fiend been in production? That thing hasn't taken one step past "Beaten with the fugly stick" since its mangled form lifted itself from the molten vats of lead it was born from.

schadenfreude wrote:
As far as using "Counts as" in a tournament the answer is no, but conversions are ok.

WISIWYG is what separates "Counts as" from conversions.

Just throwing cold ones on the table and calling them bloodcrushers is clear "Counts as" Cone ones for bloodcrushers won't fly, but bloodletters mounted on cold ones can be called a conversion (a difficult conversion to boot). If the parts and pieces are GW, and it's easily recognizable as a blood crusher then it's a conversion. Personally I think building a mechanical exoskeleton over a bloodletter using parts and pieces from ork killer cans would look good for bloodcrushers conversions.

I think you're confusing 'Counts as' and proxy.

Just throwing something on the table and calling it something is Proxy. Often not 'WYSIWIG' for wargear.
Ex: Cold Ones = Bloodcrushers (huge size difference and one is a mounted model, one is just a mount), Rhino=Land Raider, Soda Can = Drop Pod, etc.

Putting work into a non-standard conversion or paint job that is clearly not the original model is 'Counts as'. 'Counts as' is usually held at a higher WYSIWIG standard because of the difference from original model.
Ex: Khorne Marine army using SW/BA Rules that is WYSIWIG, Marines on Bears for TWC, Cold Ones as Fiends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirbinator wrote:How many years has the Fiend been in production? That thing hasn't taken one step past "Beaten with the fugly stick" since its mangled form lifted itself from the molten vats of lead it was born from.

You do know who they are fiends of, right? The big S likes it freaky. shudder


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Going back to the OP.

Aren't BloodC's on 60MM now? So no, 60 to Cav would prob not be cool. Big area difference.

40 to Cav... I guess that's a different question.

whitedragon wrote:

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:This isnt the first time crushers were modeled on bases smaller then what they come with at ard boyz

Polonius wrote:It's a pretty legit advantage. It allows you to deepstrike far more aggressively than you would otherwise be able to.

We are talking about FIENDS using cavalry bases, not CRUSHERS. Don't stir up drama where there is none.

Oh, see I didnt see fiends mentioned in OPs post, but I did see crushers.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:
Oh, see I didnt see fiends mentioned in OPs post, but I did see crushers.

I read petre's post and thought that he clarified the opponent in question was using the cold ones as Fiends, not crushers.

There were 2 different players who played the person in question