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 use a slightly converted warlock (energy crackling around spearhead) as a Farseer in an army that does not have any other Warlocks in it. Before reading any further, I'd like to hear Gwar's opinion on that.

I wouldn't have an issue as long as he didn't bring along an allied Chaos force - there's no confusion, it's adequately WYSIWYG (better than half of the character conversions I've seen), and although a bit of conversion would be nice (and mag-swappable bits even better!), there's no problem. At least not one worth writing a dozen complaining posts about.

Lol, slilly Gwar, when he starts trolling he really goes all out.

Either that, or my comment about certain players needing to unclench a little was more apt than I thought.

I don't know dude, let's see if you're genuine. If someone shows up with a complete IG army and says they're using DKoK rules, are you going to tell them to get off the table unless they're packing 100% Forge World?

Bookwrack wrote:I don't know dude, let's see if you're genuine. If someone shows up with a complete IG army and says they're using DKoK rules, are you going to tell them to get off the table unless they're packing 100% Forge World?

Yes. You want to play DkoK, you pay for the models. If you want to proxy it out, I would probably let you, depending on the circumstances. If you are just being a cheap lazy git, then no I would not.

So are you going to actually articulate a rule for how much conversion is required for a defiler to be used as soulgrinder, or vice versa?

Polonius wrote:So are you going to actually articulate a rule for how much conversion is required for a defiler to be used as soulgrinder, or vice versa?

It's called discretion. Has someone gone to the effort of making a model that can work as both/be modular? Then yes, that's an acceptable Conversion

Has someone just put down a stock Defiler with no conversion effort and just said "Dis be da Soulja Boi!"? Then no, I'll tell them to GTFO.

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:So are you going to actually articulate a rule for how much conversion is required for a defiler to be used as soulgrinder, or vice versa?

It's called discretion. Has someone gone to the effort of making a model that can work as both/be modular? Then yes, that's an acceptable Conversion

Has someone just put down a stock Defiler with no conversion effort and just said "Dis be da Soulja Boi!"? Then no, I'll tell them to GTFO.

What if it is a stock defiler, painted to match a players demon army? Would it matter if he didn't own a CSM army?

No, that is not acceptable. It is the same as Painting a Dreadnought in Nid Colours and Claiming it is a Carnifex.

Gwar! wrote:No, that is not acceptable. It is the same as Painting a Dreadnought in Nid Colours and Claiming it is a Carnifex.

Well, except that again, it's not. It'd be closer to painting a DA captain for Ultramarines, but that's I suppose just gravy.

How much conversion is required? Massive green stuff? A simple weapon swap? What are we talking here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Would it be problematic to use DA veteran bodies to represent stern guard? What about using space wolf bits in a non-space wolf army?

What about using Inquisitorial Henchmen to represent IG advisers? Using an Inquisitor as a primaris psyker? What about as a Psyker Battle Squad?

What I'm getting is it to see if there is some rule or standard by which you operate, or if it's sheer whim. The better you explain by which you judge this stuff, the less arbitrary and capricious you appear.

I mean, I appreciate the "I don't want to face lazy proxy" standard. But if you wont' allow a well painted counts as, there has to then be some level of conversion that you require. I think at that point you've gone a bit farther than most people, but if you were able to state, "I want to see a marked difference, in at least one area, between a stock defiler and the conversion," that would help.

Hahaha how much drama Gwar! can create is quite amusing.

I want to see a marked difference, in at least one area, between a stock defiler and the conversion

I'd also rather get in a good competitive game against a few proxies than roll over my opponents painted garbage.
******
Agreed. Thats a complete aspect of the hobby utterly absent from this conversion. At a certain point, many people want to create or modify armies in their own image.

But thats neither here nor there. I'd strenuously object to anyone having the temerity to suggest an unbound Defiler is a "proxy" for a Bound Defiler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Polonius wrote:You are putting adherence to the rules over all other aspects of the hobby, and that's just weird, man.

No, I am saying that for the game to be enjoyable, you must stick to the rules. If we say "it's OK to break the rules in XYZ situation" where does it stop?

As soon as you can show me a rule they are breaking, I'd almost understand your argument.

Frankly Gwar, this an entire aspect of the hobby that you seem to not be participating in. Conversions of minis, troops, vehicles,, entire armies, were in place before most of the armies, lists etc. were even conceived. Indeed, GW fully supports this aspect of the hobby. I'd proffer people have been converting armies, with the full support of GW, before you were born. I'm not being sarcastic, but brutally serious.

The though that they are some how cheating belies:
*No concept of the time it takes to convert a piece, much less an army.
*No concept of the history of the game you are playing.
*No concept of the founders of the game you are playing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Belphegor wrote:So how, respectable trolle Gwar!, do you tell the difference between a person that prefers the aesthetic of the Defiler as opposed to the Soulgrinder.
Do you reserve your condemnation until they subject themselves to your gentle pre-game interrogations?
Or do you assume the worst, and silently brew in your annoyance giving them poor soft-scores?

No I tell them straight up "That is not a Soul Grinder, that is a Defiler. Why are you using an Incorrect model? Please remove the model and replace it with the correct one." If I am in a tournament and the TO has Cleared it, I'll shrug it off. After all, that Same TO can choose to ban Pink Models if he wants. In a Non Tournament Game I will just tell him to either get his army complete or not play at all.

The problem is, as you like to say, YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES WHEN YOU SAY THAT (tee hee). Both are defilers. One is bound, one is unbound. By attempting to deny your opponent the use of that model you are cheating. Cheating Cheating Cheater who cheats! (I feel better about myself)



(Gwar do you have links to pics of this full DKOK army?)

Frazzled wrote:Frankly Gwar, this an entire aspect of the hobby that you seem to not be participating in. Conversions of minis, troops, vehicles,, entire armies, were in place before most of the armies, lists etc. were even conceived. Indeed, GW fully supports this aspect of the hobby. I'd proffer people have been converting armies, with the full support of GW, before you were born. I'm not being sarcastic, but brutally serious.

The though that they are some how cheating belies:
*No concept of the time it takes to convert a piece, much less an army.
*No concept of the history of the game you are playing.
*No concept of the founders of the game you are playing.

Actually, I think you're incorrect here.

Converting is fine. Using one model as another because you've got them and you're lazy is not. If I can look at the converted defiler and it's obvious that it's supposed to be a soul grinder then that's fine.

As for the history/founding of the game - try going into a GW store at any point in 40K's history and saying "this model is actually something else". When I started playing Rogue Trader you either had the model or you didn't. This whole proxying thing is extremely recent.

Also, I think a lot of people misunderstand the Counts As rule. Saying "my captain with plasma pistol and power weapon counts as Sicarius" is not the same as saying "my predator annihilator counts as a predator destructor".

When you played RT most models didn't exist.

You literally can't convert a model without viol,ating Gwar's incorrect rule.

Yup, so conversions and scratch builds were common.

What was not common was saying "see this model, it's actually something else today because I want that unit for my army but I can't be bothered to buy or make one".

You either bought it, converted it, scratch built it or else you didn't have it.

Even Gwar isn't saying that a converted defiler's not acceptable - you just have to put some effort into making it a soul grinder.

Why? Its WYSYWG. There's no rule against it.

Its like saying a Forgeworld Dread thats WYSIWYG can't be used unless I do some sort of conversion to it.

Its like saying I can't use a generic tac marine as a Dark Angel Tacmarine.

Generic Speeder as a Space Wolf speeder.

Eldrad as a generic farseer.

A dreadnaught is a dreadnaught, doesn't matter who made it - it's clearly a dreadnaught.

A tactical marine is a tactical marine - there is no difference in appearance or weapons between a normal and dark angel marine.

Likewise speeder.

Eldrad is a farseer so that would be okay but I would personally get fed up with having to remind opponents that it's not Eldrad and would probably convert it a bit.

A defiler is not a soul grinder. It wouldn't be difficult to convert a defiler to show that the daemon is or is becoming un-bound. Why is that such a problem? The OP has already said that he wants to use defilers because he can't be bothered buying or converting soul grinders. Why is that acceptable?

Why he wants to do it is irrelevant. Under the Gwar standard it has to be exactly the correct mini from the corect codex.

A vanilla dreadnought is not a DA dreadnought. They are from different codexes so right out.

A tac marine is not the same as a DA tac marine. They are from different codexes so right out.

Likewise speeder.

See why the argument does not stand up to examination?

Scott-S6 wrote:A defiler is not a soul grinder. It wouldn't be difficult to convert a defiler to show that the daemon is or is becoming un-bound. Why is that such a problem? The OP has already said that he wants to use defilers because he can't be bothered buying or converting soul grinders. Why is that acceptable?

Because it has the same model footprint, the same size, (indeed, they share many of the same parts) the appropriate weaponry, and can't be mistaken for anything else.

That's why Gwar's 'carnifex/dreadnought' supposition is such an abject failure, since the only thing a fex and dread share are base size.

Finally, there's the fact that I think Soul Grinder's look a lot better than Defilers. If I ran a CSM army, I'd certainly prefer to buy them over the standard Defiler.

the question comes what does the soul grinder have that the defiler doesn't.

a cannon coming out of mouth? yep
multibarrel extra gun? yep
extra close combat weapon? yep
same size? yep
same shape? yep

it would be like telling an orc player that they can't use a landraider that has been converted into a battlewagon, because there is battlewagon model and the landraider isn't the same profile.

I am going to use them as soulgrinders. It sums it up nicely if I run into a Gwar type person and he refuse to play I am better off.

skkipper wrote:the question comes what does the soul grinder have that the defiler doesn't.

a cannon coming out of mouth? yep
multibarrel extra gun? yep
extra close combat weapon? yep
same size? yep
same shape? yep

it would be like telling an orc player that they can't use a landraider that has been converted into a battlewagon, because there is battlewagon model and the landraider isn't the same profile.

I am going to use them as soulgrinders. It sums it up nicely if I run into a Gwar type person and he refuse to play I am better off.

Even more than that (and keep U handz of my minis!)
It has the exact same chassis. Its really akin to the difference between a regular dread and a venerable dread with the same loadout. One looks cool, one looks like someone played "pimp my chassis."

Scott-S6 wrote:Also, I think a lot of people misunderstand the Counts As rule. Saying "my captain with plasma pistol and power weapon counts as Sicarius" is not the same as saying "my predator annihilator counts as a predator destructor".

Using your own analogy you shouldn't have any problem with the Defiler/Soulgrinder swap. A Defiler is in effect the Captain with plas and power weapon and the Soulgrinder is Sicarius. It is a general model with identical equipment to the specific model, such that there is no noticeable difference or impact on game play.

The Predator Annihilator counting as a Predator Destructor is the Black Reach Dreadnought that wants to be an Iron Clad.

And the Dreadnought that wants to be a Carnifex is an argument so bogus that you didn't even try to justify it, and I don't blame you for it.

cheetos hands for the win!!!

I dunno, I think the comparison with the dreadnought and the carnifex is considerably appropriate.



Most importantly, in my mind, the SG is a creature with flesh, as is the carnifex. The Defiler is entirely metal, as is the dreadnought. After all, we're playing with toy soldiers, and part of the game is that they're meant to be WYSIWYG - this is even in the rulebook. A Defiler might share a few design components with a Soul Grinder, but it doesn't look like a Soul Grinder.

Let's look at some further comparisons:

The Soul Grinder and Defiler share the same base (4 common legs) The Dread and the Carnifex share the same base (60mm, round)


The SG and Defiler have several weapon options that could 'count as' the other's weapons. The Battle-cannon on a defiler could count-as a maw. The Autocannon on a defiler could count-as a Reaper cannon. In reality, they look nothing like these guns, but, counts-as.

The Carnifex and Dreadnought also have several weapon options that could count-as the other's weapons. The Barbed Strangler can easily count-as an assault cannon, the Venom Cannon can count-as a multi-melta, and the Crab-claws can count as a DCCW.

I don't think that having four robotic-spider-legs in common is enough to consider different models, from different armies, equivalent enough to interchange. They don't have the same weapons, and as such, they violate the WYSIWYG rule. If you allow this, then I believe you have to allow Carnifexes and Ork Dreadnoughts as stand-ins for Marine Dreadnoughts.

Do the Carnifex and the Dreadnought share 50% of identical sprues?

Because I can open a Soulgrinder box, clip everything off, throw it in a pile, pick up the instructions for a Defiler, and assemble at least 50% of a Defiler model with no deviation.

It's the same model.

Not to be TFG, as I personally wouldn't care, but 50% != 100%. Though I'd get more satisfaction with a modular conversion, and think the Soul Grinder looks far more appropriate in a Daemon army than a Defiler does, it's a close enough counts-as to avoid any confusion over what it is on the table. The same would go for a Carnifex/Dreadnought counts-as. As long as it's the only one on the table, with weapon mounts that can be picked out fairly easily, I would not have issues playing against it - as long as it was a temporary proxy meant to be used to see how the unit fit in my opponent's army. I can't justify getting snippy at someone if they simply want to test something rather than dropping $60 and not have it work out. I've been my own victim of that far too often.

Most importantly, in my mind, the SG is a creature with flesh, as is the carnifex. The Defiler is entirely metal, as is the dreadnought. After all, we're playing with toy soldiers, and part of the game is that they're meant to be WYSIWYG - this is even in the rulebook. A Defiler might share a few design components with a Soul Grinder, but it doesn't look like a Soul Grinder.

Let's look at some further comparisons:

The Soul Grinder and Defiler share the same base (4 common legs) The Dread and the Carnifex share the same base (60mm, round)
****More than that. It’s the SAME identical chassis. There is no difference. Its comparing a marine dread chassis to a marine dread chassis.

The SG and Defiler have several weapon options that could 'count as' the other's weapons. The Battle-cannon on a defiler could count-as a maw. The Autocannon on a defiler could count-as a Reaper cannon. In reality, they look nothing like these guns, but, counts-as.
****I’ll grant you that.

The Carnifex and Dreadnought also have several weapon options that could count-as the other's weapons. The Barbed Strangler can easily count-as an assault cannon, the Venom Cannon can count-as a multi-melta, and the Crab-claws can count as a DCCW.
***The difference of course is 1. same exact location between the two defilers whereas this false comparison does not have that; 2. They don’t look similar. 3. Both chaos, just like all both a vanilla and space wolf dreadnought are marine dreadnoughts.

Again, to show the visual similarities vs. the misbegotten nature fo the dread/nid comparison
Defiler /soulgrinder. Note same size, chassis, similar weapon systems

Defiler


Soulgrinder.


Carnifex and dreadnought. Whats the same again? Oh yes, the base.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/33598-Carnifex%2C%20Tyrinid%2C%20Snipefex.html

I, yet again, encourage a reflection on why the WYSIWYG rule exists to see if this causes any problem:
1) It does not cause confusion as to armament. SGs have set weapons, and thus can be represented by nearly anything that could work as a "Maw cannon" or a a "soul reaper".
2) It is the same size, shape, and footprint. It is nearly the same model, so that's pretty easy.
3) It does not diminish the aesthetics of the game. A well painted defiler looks just as chaotic as a soulgrinder, and does not clash like a carnifex/dreadnought proxy.

Given that there are two very vague rules at work here (using the appropriate model vs. counts as), the key is to look at why those rules exist, and see if any factors for one or the other weigh more heavily.

Polonius wrote:I, yet again, encourage a reflection on why the WYSIWYG rule exists to see if this causes any problem:
...
3) It does not diminish the aesthetics of the game. A well painted defiler looks just as chaotic as a soulgrinder, and does not clash like a carnifex/dreadnought proxy.

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion. Mine is opposite - I believe that it does clash. Look at the rest of the daemon range. There's nothing boxy about any of it. I think the defiler most definitely does clash with the other daemons.

It's a good proxy, because it's the right size. But it's not part of the army, it doesn't fit. Aesthetically, a defiler doesn't work with the daemons.

Scott-S6 wrote:A dreadnaught is a dreadnaught, doesn't matter who made it - it's clearly a dreadnaught.

A tactical marine is a tactical marine - there is no difference in appearance or weapons between a normal and dark angel marine.

Likewise speeder.

Eldrad is a farseer so that would be okay but I would personally get fed up with having to remind opponents that it's not Eldrad and would probably convert it a bit.

A defiler is not a soul grinder. It wouldn't be difficult to convert a defiler to show that the daemon is or is becoming un-bound. Why is that such a problem? The OP has already said that he wants to use defilers because he can't be bothered buying or converting soul grinders. Why is that acceptable?

KaloranSLC wrote:Not to be TFG, as I personally wouldn't care, but 50% != 100%.

My Point exactly. You have to understand, if a Player made some effort to convert it and make it modular/dual use, I would have 0 problem with it. My problem stems from the fact that the only reason anyone would place down a stock Defiler and go "This is a Soul Grinder" is just being lazy.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:I, yet again, encourage a reflection on why the WYSIWYG rule exists to see if this causes any problem:
...
3) It does not diminish the aesthetics of the game. A well painted defiler looks just as chaotic as a soulgrinder, and does not clash like a carnifex/dreadnought proxy.

Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion. Mine is opposite - I believe that it does clash. Look at the rest of the daemon range. There's nothing boxy about any of it. I think the defiler most definitely does clash with the other daemons.

It's a good proxy, because it's the right size. But it's not part of the army, it doesn't fit. Aesthetically, a defiler doesn't work with the daemons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then redbeard. On the positive, i now have ideas on how to combine both with a model showing the soulgrinder "breaking out" of a defiler model. Very cool.