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.

Will Bloodreavers work as CSM cultists, provided I swap a hand out for a firearm? 

They seem too large, like Marine sized, and they come with 32mm bases. 

Is their size too large for a TO to OK them, even if I put them on 25mm bases?

RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

You have to ask the TO or your opponent if they are making up any House Rules to the contrary.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made up in the absence of rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dactylartha wrote:
Will Bloodreavers work as CSM cultists, provided I swap a hand out for a firearm? 

They seem too large, like Marine sized, and they come with 32mm bases. 

Is their size too large for a TO to OK them, even if I put them on 25mm bases?

Whether or not a TO will OK them is something you would have to discuss with the TO in question.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with it. Khornate cultists being somewhat beefcake doesn't seem too out of place.

Chaos marauder models would seem a better "fit" to cultists, but if you are set on the bloodreavers then a quick chat to a To might be a good idea.

Personaly, I wouldn't have a problem.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made upon the absence of rules.

You're given permission to use models and to use datasheets. That permission is not then restricted to using the "correct" models with the "correct" datasheets. Therefore, RaW, you can use whatever models to represent whatever datasheets.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made upon the absence of rules.

You're given permission to use models and to use datasheets. That permission is not then restricted to using the "correct" models with the "correct" datasheets. Therefore, RaW, you can use whatever models to represent whatever datasheets.

Not true.

It is implied that you use the correct model for any given datasheet.

The RaW is implied that you should use the Land Raider model kit, to represent a land raider datasheet.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made upon the absence of rules.

You're given permission to use models and to use datasheets. That permission is not then restricted to using the "correct" models with the "correct" datasheets. Therefore, RaW, you can use whatever models to represent whatever datasheets.

Not true.

It is implied that you use the correct model for any given datasheet.

The RaW is implied that you should use the Land Raider model kit, to represent a land raider datasheet.

Can you please show me in the rulebook where this is "implied"? And in any case, an implication isn't a rule.

To summarise: You can use Bloodreavers as CSM cultists unmodified just fine. If someone disagrees, they are not following the rules. You are free to make up whatever house rules you want.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.

Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made upon the absence of rules.

You're given permission to use models and to use datasheets. That permission is not then restricted to using the "correct" models with the "correct" datasheets. Therefore, RaW, you can use whatever models to represent whatever datasheets.

Not true.

It is implied that you use the correct model for any given datasheet.

The RaW is implied that you should use the Land Raider model kit, to represent a land raider datasheet.

Can you please show me in the rulebook where this is "implied"? And in any case, an implication isn't a rule.

To summarise: You can use Bloodreavers as CSM cultists unmodified just fine. If someone disagrees, they are not following the rules. You are free to make up whatever house rules you want.

I don't see anyone allowing me to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Good luck forcing your EXTREMELY tenuous interpretation onto any reasonable player. I'm just not sure what you get out of antagonizing everyone like this.

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see anyone allowing me to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Good luck forcing your EXTREMELY tenuous interpretation onto any reasonable player. I'm just not sure what you get out of antagonizing everyone like this.

As my signature says, my YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

The rules allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith datasheet. If you don't want to do that, make a house rule. But YMDC is not for talking about house rules, that's the Proposed Rules forum, so I will answer rules questions by using the actual rules.

@OP.
Bloodreavers as Khornate Cultists with combat weapon & pistol is probably the single most common model substitute that I see at tournaments. Even without swapping out a hand for a pistol, I've found that people are generally ok with them having 'throwing axes' or whatever.

Put them on 25mm bases.
I think most people would have an issue with them having autoguns or non-khorne mark unless you do some serious converting.

But as always, this kind of thing is up to your TO and whatever rules they have around counts-as models.

Thank you Trasvi for the anecdote. I agree 25mm bases would be needed to avoid modeling for advantage.

And thanks BCB and Co for the flushed debate.

On the basis the OP is satisfied, could I get a page reference for the use any models for any data sheet thing?

I’d like to check that.

Warhammer 40,000 BRB Page 176
Models & Datasheets
The rules and characteristics of all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle.

So per RAW, models have datasheets not the reverse.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see anyone allowing me to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Good luck forcing your EXTREMELY tenuous interpretation onto any reasonable player. I'm just not sure what you get out of antagonizing everyone like this.

As my signature says, my YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective.

The rules allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith datasheet.

They really don't...

The rules definitely do not allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Unless you have a rules quote saying that this is allowed (Hint you will not fine a rule stating as such), then you can not do it...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


It is implied that you use the correct model for any given datasheet.

The RaW is implied that you should use the Land Raider model kit, to represent a land raider datasheet.

Can you please show me in the rulebook where this is "implied"? And in any case, an implication isn't a rule.

To summarise: You can use Bloodreavers as CSM cultists unmodified just fine. If someone disagrees, they are not following the rules. You are free to make up whatever house rules you want.

But you can not.

The rules say "MODELS & DATASHEETS The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle." (Battle Primer Page 2)

rules and characteristics for all models are presented on datasheets. This includes a name of the unit. Looking at the model with the same name it is clearly implied that you use that particular model for that particular unit. it is not explicit, but it is implicit.

Therefore RaW you can not use anything but a Land Raider to represent a Land Raider...

You are using the "The rules don't say I can't!" use a grot to represent an Imperial Knight!

https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!" This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

See that part about "this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do"? There ya go.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But YMDC is not for talking about house rules, that's the Proposed Rules forum,

This is also incorrect. Please see the Tenets of YMDC thread. YMDC is for rules discussion. This includes discussion of gaps in the rules, or proposed HIWPI solutions to rules issues.

Which you already know, as it's been pointed out to you in the past.

To be honest even tournaments I go to are pretty lax on what counts as what so long as you make it clear and are not being a moron e.g. they realistically could be the datasheet.

The bigger thing are the bases sizes which effect units the bigger they are. IMO with CCW style cultists you'll be doing your self more harm than good on bigger bases so i cant see any complaints

 Latro_ wrote:
To be honest even tournaments I go to are pretty lax on what counts as what so long as you make it clear and are not being a moron e.g. they realistically could be the datasheet.

The bigger thing are the bases sizes which effect units the bigger they are. IMO with CCW style cultists you'll be doing your self more harm than good on bigger bases so i cant see any complaints

The big advantage would be with wider bases it takes fewer cultists to stretch out a conga line to hold 2 objectives. You could stretch 12" inches with 3 models on 32mm and hold 2 objectives as opposed to the 4 models at 25mm

 alextroy wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 BRB Page 176
Models & Datasheets
The rules and characteristics of all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle.

So per RAW, models have datasheets not the reverse.

Exactly this.

There is no "Bloodreaver" datasheet in 40K, so Bloodreaver models do not have 40K rules to be fielding with.
Arguing that you can use whatever model for whatever datasheet is not RAW per above.

That said, I doubt anyone would have an issue with Bloodreavers as Cultists. They are Citadel models, human and there technically aren't "Khorne Cultist" models anyway despite it being an option on the Cultist datasheet. Nor does GW sell adequate Cultist models anymore (the 5-man sprue being it) with the Dark Vengeance Cultists including Champions and Heavy Weapons no longer being available.

Comparable models are acceptable 99.9999999% of the time, with that 0.000001% typically being TFG that doesn't want you to field that particular unit to force you to field something else to give him an advantage.

-

Great! I plan to use my old Chaos Dwarves with blunderbusses as Cultists with autoguns for my Iron Warriors. Primitive abhumans abound and make good fodder shield blobs.

 Malathrim wrote:
Great! I plan to use my old Chaos Dwarves with blunderbusses as Cultists with autoguns for my Iron Warriors. Primitive abhumans abound and make good fodder shield blobs.

I would easily accept them as a counts as, very fluffy; though those hats...

Yeah, its tough to imagine what type of event would disallow this as a proxy, especially once you put them on 25mm bases.

They way I see it, models in 40k do three things:
1) occupy space, based on base/footprint.
2) Have volume for the model to interact with terrain for LOS.
3) Indicate what unit and weapons/upgrades the model is representing.

The first is essential, because base size has a direct, measurable role in the game, for things like ranked combats, maximizing coherency, generating auras, etc. The second is important, because with some imagination you can figure it out, but it really helps if a grot is grot sized. The third has some flexibility.

The reality is, base size is only an issue if you are using bases that are far out of line. Usually large bases are an advantage, but not always. going up or down one size (32 to 25, or 32 to 40) usually won't upset people in small doses, but in areas where it's a clear advantage (like a horde of cultists), I'd stick with the appropriate base. Of course, GW doesn't specify an appropriate base size on data sheets, so... shrug?

Volume is one of those things that seems like a really big deal, but that really depends on the circumstances and the terrain you use. If you use a good amount of LOS blocking terrain of varying sizes, than having the model appropriately sized can matter. this is where Knight proxies can really get hung up.

Finally, being a representation is probably the one where people have the most latitude. WYSIWYG is technically the rule in most events, but there's usually some slop, as long as you are consistent. For example, saying "all flamers are actually plasmas" is okay in a lot of places. That said, if you have guys with two weapons, calling it an autogun will bring some frowns.

My guidelines for a good proxy are:
1) use the appropriate base and general model size
2) There should be a visual connection to intended unit, either on first glance or after the connection is described.
3) There should not be a more obvious connection to another unit.

Jeeeeus! Im the lucky owner of 60 Shadowswords?! Who would have known! ;D

Personally I think Bloodreaver models make better Khorne Berzerkers than Cultists. I myself have run them as such. They are a bit beefy for Cultists IMO, especially if they are on 32mm bases. They even have axes and swords, which is the current preferred loadout for Berzerkers.

Berzerkers without power armor bothers me.

 Brutallica wrote:
Jeeeeus! Im the lucky owner of 60 Shadowswords?! Who would have known! ;D

They're the Epic 40k ones arent they? It's still a Shadowsword. Rite.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
Jeeeeus! Im the lucky owner of 60 Shadowswords?! Who would have known! ;D

They're the Epic 40k ones arent they? It's still a Shadowsword. Rite.

Convert them to Grot Tanks

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules definitely do not allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Unless you have a rules quote saying that this is allowed (Hint you will not fine a rule stating as such), then you can not do it...

Just to clarify, would that mean that kitbashes are not legal? For example I kitbashed a Fireblade out of FW parts because I didn't like the official model. It's technically a FW and not a Fireblade then, right?

Dandelion wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules definitely do not allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Unless you have a rules quote saying that this is allowed (Hint you will not fine a rule stating as such), then you can not do it...

Just to clarify, would that mean that kitbashes are not legal? For example I kitbashed a Fireblade out of FW parts because I didn't like the official model. It's technically a FW and not a Fireblade then, right?

There are no rules that specifically say that you must use a given model for a given datasheet. What there is, is a range of models, and a range of datasheets for those models, with the assumption being that you use the datasheet that is relevant to the model.

The rules have never taken into account what happens when you want to use a different model in place of the 'official' model. That's entirely between you and your opponent, or the TO in the case of organised play.

Yeah, counts-as and kit bashes are kind of two different dogs.

A kit bash or conversion is taking one model, and modifying it with different parts to represent particular models or upgrades. For example, taking a Power Axe arm from one kit and gluing it to a Tac Sarge's body is a kit bash or conversion. The end result is clearly a SM model with a Power Axe. In context, the only model in a TAC squad that could have a power axe is the Sarge.

Kit bashing tends to be about WYSIWYG equipment. For example, a Fire Blade might have unique equipment. Or it might be reposed is a suitably dramatic fashion. Or just given a fancier paint job. Kit bashing indicates something "special" about a model, usually, so as long as the FB doesn't look like a normal FW, it's a good kit bash. If it's just a regular looking FW, and you just say he's a FB, that's a poor kit bash.

Counts as is something completely different. Something like... Goliath Gangers counts-as Orks in Kill Team. In general, this only works with something that's not part of the normal model range (no Goliath rules in KT, thus far) or with something broadly sweeping. Blue Marines counts-as Blood Angels kind of thing.

Proxies are again, a different thing. They're usually nothing remotely related, but put in to take up space. Maybe you don't have enough Guardsmen to play 150 infantry, so you grab some old 3rd edition Dark Eldar to stand in for some lasgunners. It fills space, looks awful, but you can still play the game.

I'm not aware of any hard and fast rules regarding what can qualify as a legal model, because when it gets down to it, you and your opponent make that decision. Maybe you're just starting out, and you can't afford minis but you have lots of 1" dowel and a crap-load of markers. So you cut up that dowel and write the names of models on top. If you and your opponent are good with it, all the power to you.

 insaniak wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules definitely do not allow a player to use a Ripper Swarm to represent a Necron Monolith. Unless you have a rules quote saying that this is allowed (Hint you will not fine a rule stating as such), then you can not do it...

Just to clarify, would that mean that kitbashes are not legal? For example I kitbashed a Fireblade out of FW parts because I didn't like the official model. It's technically a FW and not a Fireblade then, right?

There are no rules that specifically say that you must use a given model for a given datasheet. What there is, is a range of models, and a range of datasheets for those models, with the assumption being that you use the datasheet that is relevant to the model.

The rules have never taken into account what happens when you want to use a different model in place of the 'official' model. That's entirely between you and your opponent, or the TO in the case of organised play.

If that's the case, then what exactly is wrong with BCB's statement? He's just saying you can use whatever model you want according to the core rules, with the assumption that you and your opponent need to agree that the model is acceptable. Which comes down to the "Most Important Rule" overriding the lack of rules. So technically someone can run a ripper swarm as a monolith, but his/her opponent can refuse to play against that. and with tourneys and whatnot you have actual oversight to ensure a standard.
Long story short, so long as both players agree it's fine... then it's fine. Obviously, making the models as similar as possible to the original makes this much easier but that's about it.

Plus, for me personally, i've had some trouble figuring out which weapons are what when I'm gluing them to a model. As an example I bought the Admech starter some time ago and tried to build a Dominus with a Volkite Blaster... but there was no image showing me which of the two weapons in the kit was the blaster. Same thing with the macrostubber. I honestly didn't know which gun was which. I had the rules in the codex but nothing to show me what they looked like. I'm still not 100% sure I picked the right one (even though I searched images online). So, WYSIWYG only works when everyone knows what the model is supposed to look like, but the lack of an official reference sheet can make this difficult for new players.