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.

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

The tab on your WHFB goblin does not say 'Gretchin'.

And the word you're looking for is 'moot'.

Oh geee a typo. Say it isn't so. No recovering from that one.

Would this do?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

This is where you lose any credibility that your arguement may have had.

If your reasoning for allowing fantasy models in 40k would allow for an epic model to be used in 40k, you show just how flawed your logic is.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

So NOW you are worried aout which game system it says on the box?

The old epic Avatar(or Knight, or warhound) has the name of those models on the tab.

Since system does not matter, only name on the tab these are legal models in your claims

This thread again? I love it.

It's also not about what it says on the box. Nobody would begrudge you for using a Devastator with Heavy Bolter (from the Devastators box) as a Tactical Marine with a Heavy Bolter, because there is no real difference. On the other hand, replacing all of my Chaos Terminators with the Chaos Terminator Lord model (who comes on an elevated rock base) specifically so that they can get LOS over something they wouldn't before is not okay.

A more sensible example would be Chaos Raptors. They're modelled like they're flying/landing/taking off, and are quite a bit taller than normal Marines because of it. Giving a Space Marine a meltagun from the Raptors box is fine, but replacing a Tactical Squad's legs with Raptor legs is not. Not because they're not from the same army (the majority of my CSMs are made from Loyalist kits, including my Land Raider), but because it confers a specific advantage. If you weren't doing this to gain an advantage, you'd have no problem with measuring LOS as if they weren't taller. I'm working on a Raptor who is on one knee, fist to the ground. If there was ever a problem with LOS/cover because of this, I wouldn't argue against it.

If you've got a model on a scenic base that allows them LOS over something they wouldn't otherwise get, you should have no problem with your opponent not allowing you to do this. If you do have a problem with it, then you're definitely modelling for advantage.

I don't know why I bothered to even reply to this, because I know it's futile.

I use an epic daemon as a herald of slaanesh. It's a grater daemon, and has a snake-like body. Roughly the size of a daemonette.

Some of the coolest armies I have seen include minis from other ranges, fantasy and 40k combined, etc.

I have seen armies that have own awards at armies on parade-an official GW event- that have both 40k and fantasy models used together.

I know people who have some sweet Thousand Sons conversions made with probably 40-50% tomb kings parts.

There is a guy in my area with a savage orks 40k army. He uses arachnarok spiders as vehicles (don't remember if it's trucks or battle wagons) and uses fantasy savage orcs with 40 k weapons on them.

Are you telling me all of these things are illegal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point is this-who gets to draw the line where conversions are ok, and what is the deciding factor?

The line is when you're clearly doing it deliberately to get an in-game advantage instead of simply having a cool conversion.
Case in point: Using fantasy grots to see over an ADL.
This line is widely accepted by the community.

Kind of surprised to see this thread again, but more surprised yet at some of the outlandish arguments being presented. "We can use any citadel miniature in our games"? At this point the game you're looking for is Calvinball.

My feelings on this:

1.) If you modify a base or model to make it look cool, it's OK. If you modify a base or model to give in a rules advantage, like gluing it on tall rocks so it can see over stuff, it's MFA and cheating. The test for this, as another poster has said previously: will you swap your model out with a stock unmodified model? If not, you're probably cheating. It's like gluing tall grass on a base and claiming your dudes have a cover save they take with them.

2.) Normally modeled and based grots cannot see over an ADL. Nonetheless I'd allow normal grots to have LOS anyway because it's kind of dumb.

3.) If you broke out that arrer launcher WHFB grot, a decorative FW grot, or some other ridiculous way to try and say it's got LOS, I'd immediately pack up and play someone else; because you've immediately established playing with you will not be fun.

The rule is a bit vague:

‘Page 3 - Models and Base Sizes
The rules in this book assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with. Sometimes, a player may have models in his collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases (which are, in all fairness, relatively few and far between) you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of similar type as guidance.’

I'd assume this rule is more about allowing old Avatars on square bases/Terminators on 25mm bases while also allowing re-basing, but still looks like it gives permission to use different bases than supplied. But of course who judges what is and isn’t an appropriate size?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

I thought game system did not matter, only that it was a GW model?

You're not being inconsistent are you?

Prove your fantasy model, made for fantasy, is a 40k model. Burden is in YOU in this.

 nolzur wrote:
Are you telling me all of these things are illegal?

Yes. No. Maybe.

The game rules don't really come right out and say 'You can only use the correct Citadel model to represent the unit that you want to put on the table.' They're just written under the assumption that the model you use is appropriate for its purpose. Although there is a perception that conversions or 3rd-party models are technically illegal, but tolerated so long as they are not abusive.

My point is this-who gets to draw the line where conversions are ok, and what is the deciding factor?

You and your opponent, or the TO in the case of organised play, draw that line. So exactly where it is drawn is going to vary from game to game.

In general practice, the less a conversion or stand-in differs in profile from the original model, the more widely accepted it will be, although there is also a certain amount of leeway from some players to account for the 'cool' factor - ie: a conversion may be considerably different to the original model, but accepted just because it is awesome...

For the specific example under discussion here, regular gretchin can't see over an ADL. Allowing big gunz to park behind an ADL and shoot over it is therefore something that many players are going to see as no more acceptable than, say, allowing a tactical marine to shoot over a rhino. And so a conversion that allows the gretchin to shoot over the wall (whether it be using models that are taller than the standard gun crew, or tall bases, or modelling a shorter wall) is likewise going to be unacceptable. To re-use the previous example, it would be akin to modelling your tactical marines in 1" stilts so that they can stand behind their transport and shoot over it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Odd i say the same thing. Now if the mounting tab said Snotling you would have a point but since it says Gretchin your point is mute. Good one though you didnt answer the question.

So you would be fine with me using an Epic scale Avatar in a regular game, just so I could get better cover from an ADL?

Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it. He can only decide whether or not to play you using it.

I thought game system did not matter, only that it was a GW model?

You're not being inconsistent are you?

Prove your fantasy model, made for fantasy, is a 40k model. Burden is in YOU in this.

There was nothing inconsistent in what I said. I'll type this slowly so you can keep up this time. If you show me a Games Workshop model who has an identying mark, mounting tab, word whatever, that denotes it as a unit that is listed in the Dex the owner is going to use it for and I have no way of proving that that model was not intended to be used as such then yes the owner may legally use it as far as I am concerned. Now I may choose not to play that individual if I do not want to or feel the army is illegal. As far as I' am concerned I have proven it. When you face an IG player do you make him show you the box his Russ came out of? Afterall there is now no way to prove it is an actual 40k model anymore. When you see your opponent put Devastators on the table do you make him show you the video where only the ones out of that box are put in that squad when they are assembled and painted? Afterall you are being inconsistent idf you allow a Tac marine to be a Devastator since thay are different models. Do you take paint samples from opponents and have them analyzed to make sure they are only GW paints?

The inconsistency is that you asserted the box it came out of didn't matter, and then when asked about the Epic Avatar, the box it came out of suddenly matters.

Did you even read it? You'll have to show me where I said it matters. What I said was does the box this "epic" Avatar came out of have the word Epic on it? Having never played Epic Eldar I would not know since I have never purchased one. So as far as I am concerned if you put an Avatar on the table and it is out of a GW box that has no game system written on it then you may use it in any of the GW game systems where a model of that name is allowed.

As I have never played WHFB O&G and have never purchased any used Gretchin there can be no way any of the 60-70 + Grots I own could have come out of a box or blister labeled for Fantasy.

5 pages just like the last three threads on this subject. Say what you will again and again. I'm done here.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Depends. Since I haven't seen one in a box does it say Epic on it? If it only says it is a Games Workshop model and does not denote a game system then your opponent has no say if you can or can not use it

Boss GreenNutz wrote:There was nothing inconsistent in what I said.

Incorrect. I have bold'ed the section where you are being inconsistent, as apparently you are unable to correctly remember what you type, even when it is quoted in your own reply.

Boss GreenNutz wrote: I'll type this slowly so you can keep up this time.

Reported for rule 1 violation

Boss GreenNutz wrote: If you show me a Games Workshop model who has an identying mark, mounting tab, word whatever, that denotes it as a unit that is listed in the Dex the owner is going to use it for and I have no way of proving that that model was not intended to be used as such then yes the owner may legally use it as far as I am concerned.

Yet JUST above the system mattered. Hence you being inconsistent. Can you now agree that your position is flipping more often than a frying pan on Shrove Tuesday?

So, again - an Eldar avatar from Epic, saying "Epic" on the box - can this or can this NOT be used in a 40k game?

 Ouze wrote:
Kind of surprised to see this thread again, but more surprised yet at some of the outlandish arguments being presented. "We can use any citadel miniature in our games"? At this point the game you're looking for is Calvinball.

My feelings on this:

1.) If you modify a base or model to make it look cool, it's OK. If you modify a base or model to give in a rules advantage, like gluing it on tall rocks so it can see over stuff, it's MFA and cheating. The test for this, as another poster has said previously: will you swap your model out with a stock unmodified model? If not, you're probably cheating. It's like gluing tall grass on a base and claiming your dudes have a cover save they take with them.

2.) Normally modeled and based grots cannot see over an ADL. Nonetheless I'd allow normal grots to have LOS anyway because it's kind of dumb.

3.) If you broke out that arrer launcher WHFB grot, a decorative FW grot, or some other ridiculous way to try and say it's got LOS, I'd immediately pack up and play someone else; because you've immediately established playing with you will not be fun.

Read the first rule on pg 2, it's the only hint at what models are allowed in the game. But please show me these rules that grant permission or establish guide lines on what models we can use in the game?
What is calvin ball and is it fun?

1. Grots on bases: cheaters, anyone else: rule of cool. Surely we should look at each converted grot before making blanket statements about the fielders character? I would swap them if I was fielding the modified grots, but I would think you were being TFG. And if my grots were on decorative bases then my entire army would have been put on them as well.

2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

3) and I would think the same thing of anyone who throws a fit over grots.

most ork players are in it for the fun, if they were WAAC people they would have jumped ship for Tau/Eldar.

If people are so upset about grots on decorative bases, then the only fair thing to do is not allow decorative bases. Because if they can create such a huge advantage for grots, and the person using them to be instantly labeled a cheater, then they can create the same advantage for any other model in the game. OMG what huge advantage They can see over a wall that they can do as it is, But it also lets them be seen behind a ADL so they can be shot at, instead of being completely out of LOS. You'd think you'd want more orks to put them on bases so you can get rid of them quicker instead of happily hiding out of LOS firing barrages the entire game.

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

What is misleading about the statement is that it makes it seem like you are talking about horizontal view.

The Grots cannot see over the ADL to models on the same Linear Plane; they *Could* see over the ADL to models at Higher elevation depending on their placement

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

Any model in the game can partially see over the ADL, but some models, such as grots, will not be able to see over it at any useful angle.

grots can see over the ADL, this is true, it's not as misleading as just saying they can't see over the wall which is demonstrably untrue.

The usefulness of the anger can only be determined in game when actually drawing LOS to something.

What is misleading about the statement is that it makes it seem like you are talking about horizontal view.

The Grots cannot see over the ADL to models on the same Linear Plane; they *Could* see over the ADL to models at Higher elevation depending on their placement

I never said anything about horizontal view.
The angle of elevation depends on how far back the grot is from the wall. the ADL also has slits that can be seen through with a lower elevation. the closer the grot is, the higher the anger, the further back, the lower the angle. And that's just on a pure flat table, there are to many variables in determining the rise of the angle to just say no.

to just say they can't see over the wall, makes it sound like you are saying they can never draw LOS to anything on the other side of the wall. which is misleading and untrue.

Can grots see over the wall? Yes
Can the see the marines at the other side of the table? well take a look and determine LOS.

Did I really type anger? wow there's a Freudian slip. My fingers must be trying to tell me something
But no matter the rise of the angle I bet it's acute one

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

I never said anything about horizontal view.

And that is exactly why it is misleading.

Had you said Grots can sometimes see over the ADL at things that are not on the same level as them.

Then it would have been vague enough to not be misleading, but the way you said it seems absolute, when that is just not true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
2. Grots can see over the ADL, this has been established.

This is misleading.

I never said anything about horizontal view.

And that is exactly why it is misleading.

Had you said Grots can sometimes see over the ADL at things that are not on the same level as them.

Then it would have been vague enough to not be misleading, but the way you said it seems absolute, when that is just not true.

I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

Because it wasn't wrong and untrue.
The statement did not say they can not see over the wall at all times. What was missing was the specifics.
Can a Grot right behind the wall see a marine at the far end of the board, when all are on level ground? No, so in this case the statement was true.

At times they can't, at times they can.
BOTH statements were both true and false. Both depend on the situation.
So saying it's "demonstrably wrong and untrue" is infact not correct. It can be demonstrated to be true at times.

This is directed at both sides. Both satements were misleading, as they can both be true and false.
So instead of argueing "who was right" (neither), how about we instead add something constructive.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I answered a misleading statement which is false with a statement that is true. just because people are assuming angles does not make my statement untrue and it is absolutely true Grots can see over the wall.

The statement was a true as yours.
Sometimes they can see something over, somethimes they can't. Both right, both wrong.
Do we really need 20 posts where everyone states they were right? It's pointless, doesn't nothing to further the debate at hand.
Forget trying to win an internet argument and move on to something constructive.

the statement that has been used though is "grots can't see over walls" which is demonstrably wrong and untrue.
as grots can see over walls which is demonstrably true.

so why just direct this at me and not the others as well?

it's not about winning the intranetz, it's about making correct statements in a RAW forum. so when people say something demonstrably wrong and untrue, they should be corrected.

Because it wasn't wrong and untrue.
The statement did not say they can not see over the wall at all times. What was missing was the specifics.
Can a Grot right behind the wall see a marine at the far end of the board, when all are on level ground? Get a models eye view and determine LOS

At times they can't, at times they can.
BOTH statements were both true and false. Both depend on the situation.
So saying it's "demonstrably wrong and untrue" is infact not correct. It can be demonstrated to be true at times.

This is directed at both sides. Both satements were misleading, as they can both be true and false.
So instead of argueing "who was right" (neither), how about we instead add something constructive.

Fixed that for you.

Moving forward though, what rules in a permissive rule set, say what models are allowed to be used in the game? I can find one, but there must be more that I'm missing since it seems to me, that people are picking a choosing what models they like and therefore allowed based on opinions, with no rules support.

RAW what page tells me what models can be used as grots?