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.

So I know it isn't out yet, but there are a few other armies with terrain models out already. So my question is, how close do terrain pieces need to be to the ones shown/made by GW? Exactly the same? Same shape and size? Can be completely rearranged?

I like the new drill platform but that thing looks like it is tall and I would much rather have two low levels than a 1st and 2nd story thin tall building.

RaW you can use any model to represent any datasheet. How much leeway your local group will allow is up to them to house rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use any model to represent any datasheet. .

That is not RAW at all, and you've been told in the past to stop claiming it is.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use any model to represent any datasheet. .

That is not RAW at all, and you've been told in the past to stop claiming it is.

If you can show me where it says you must use the "correct" model for the "correct" datasheet, I'll be happy to concede the point. The BRB states

BRB page 176 wrote: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.

That is what the rulebook has to say about models and datasheets. Other than the requirement for models to be Citadel Miniatures, there is no WYSIWYG rule of any kind. The rules permit me to use a Grot model to represent a Knight Castellan, but it's up to whoever you are playing with to decide if you want to run with that.

However, I'd very much appreciate a redtext mod most explicitly forbidding me from stating what the rules say, if you could be so kind. I just want to make things clear.

Ultimately every single rule is optional because this is a social game and people are free to modify the rules as they please. I personally play my games (and give my rules answers) afrom a "What the rules, as written in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, and that's just one of many ways to play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you can show me where it says you must use the "correct" model for the "correct" datasheet, I'll be happy to concede the point.

The absence of a rule does not make it RAW to do whatever you want to do. It simply means that a rule doesn't exist.

However, I'd very much appreciate a redtext mod most explicitly forbidding me from stating what the rules say, if you could be so kind. I just want to make things clear.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the colour of the text makes a difference to an instruction. Coloured text is simply used where we feel it appropriate to draw extra attention to a post.

My apologies if I have misunderstood. Can I take it then that stating the RaW is now not permitted? I apologise for the constant questions I just want to be sure I am not stepping on anyones toes.

You state there is an absence of a rule, but there is not. You are given permission to represent datasheets with Citadel Miniatures. That is the rule. There are no further restrictions put upon that permission. That is how a permissive ruleset works.

In any case, to re-iterate the actual answer to the OP's question, there are no rules for how close it has to match, it's up to you and your opponent to decide.

BaconCatBug wrote:The BRB states

BRB page 176 wrote: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.

BaconCatBug wrote:You state there is an absence of a rule, but there is not. You are given permission to represent datasheets with Citadel Miniatures. That is the rule. There are no further restrictions put upon that permission. That is how a permissive ruleset works.

As you quoted yourself, the rules are actually the opposite. There are data sheets for the models NOT models for the data sheets. You are therefore incorrect to conclude the rules allow you to use any data sheet for any model.

And at the risk of putting words in insaniak's mouth, I suspect this is what is annoying him. Sure annoys me.

You know what, you're right. The permission is only one way. While one could argue that this Grot model I have is actually an Imperial Knight model, I feel like this is one of those require English parsing things required for the game to work, like how we have to assume a dice is numbered 1 to 6.

I concede the point. It's almost like presenting your argument in a coherent manner rather than using veiled comments and "no, you're just wrong" is a better way of doing things. Genuine thanks alextroy for correcting a misunderstanding of mine, I will endeavour to better myself going forward.

Point of information: others have corrected you on this before, politely, using logic and grammar/syntax. Oh, and you’ve had mods tell you not to post what you posted. Whatever, you’ve listened this time it seems and won’t trot out that fallacy again... that’s a result whichever way you look at it.