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.

Deadnight wrote:
Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?

Genuinely curious...

Like almost every chaos player, he most likely built his terminators with matching combi-weapons or had more than one set of lightning claws. Or other horrible things that only a complete WAAC would do

'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p

Yeah, it works for some things. It's not like I didn't know that the red gobo would never get any sort of useful rules when I bought him and he makes for a great counts-as runtherd, and KMB kanz counting as rokkit kanz also doesn't require a huge stretch of imagination.

It should be the worst case though, not what happens to big chunks of people's armies regularly.

Deadnight wrote:


Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?

Genuinely curious...

'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p

DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).

as for the terminators, its the stupidity in the restricted combi weapons and melee weapons that GW added. Not being able to load a full squad with the same kind of combi weapon is soooo fething stupid and makes the resolution of a shooting phase annoying

I use them count as for another similar model, IG Griffon= IG Wyvern; or as Objectives; or put in storage/display till the day GW rotate them out of obsolete.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).

Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).

And the invalidation does strike me as a bit petty/silly.

But in all seriousness its a fair point- I was more thinking thr poster was talking about a new issue from the 'current' incarnation of the death guard and not of the older incarnations and a very poor 'porting over' when dg was updated. I know gw was trying to carve out distinct units for each faction so they can ip-protect everything but imo tying them to a core armoury/roster like they used to was preferable.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

as for the terminators, its the stupidity in the restricted combi weapons and melee weapons that GW added. Not being able to load a full squad with the same kind of combi weapon is soooo fething stupid and makes the resolution of a shooting phase annoying

That's what ye get for not having proper stormbolters you filthy traitors. :p I take it that the current rules end up with you having a combi-flamer, a combi-plasma, a combination combi-melta etc and the same for the melee weapons? In which case... yeah that is really poorly conceived.

As to the bolded - Are ye not able to say 'they all have combi-flamers (or whatever) and leave it at that?

Deadnight wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).

Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).

They are referring to DG all the way up to 7th edition, who prior to their standalone codex in 8th could take Bikers, Obliterators, Dinobots etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).

Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).

They are referring to DG all the way up to 7th edition, who prior to their standalone codex in 8th could take Bikers, Obliterators, Dinobots etc.

Indeed and jokes aside I answered as such:

But in all seriousness its a fair point- I was more thinking thr poster was talking about a new issue from the 'current' incarnation of the death guard and not of the older incarnations and a very poor 'porting over' when dg was updated. I know gw was trying to carve out distinct units for each faction so they can ip-protect everything but imo tying them to a core armoury/roster like they used to was preferable.

In other words I agree that it's a shame things were invalidated and there's not 'easy' fits for a lot of stuff, short of 'play an older edition'.

Which goes back to what I said previously:

'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p

Where 'Counts as' doesn't work -it is a crying shame there isn't a better solution to the problem- I genuinely don't have an answer bit folks do have my genuine sympathies if they've had large parts of their armies invalidated.

Slipspace wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.

To everyone else they are. I guess if you really want to win an online argument badly enough you can just come up with your own self-serving definitions, treat them as the ultimate truth, and show everyone how wrong they are.

You may not like the definitions but they are definitions with a long history in wargaming. Go ask tournaments about their model policies and you'll find that counts-as is legal, proxying isn't. You can use third-party or scratchbuilt models that are WYSIWYG and a reasonable interpretation of the rules, you can't use a random other vehicle that just happens to be the same size as the one you're proxying it as or say "these flamers are really plasma guns".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
So when the day comes that you can't (or won't) use your Salamander as a Salamander?
1) Remove the autocannon & replace it with something valid for a Chimera. Depending upon the edition details you may need to include a turret.
2) Using simple hobby tools, some glue, & a bit of plastic card, extend the sides of the open crew compartment upwards a bit,
3) Drill out the firing ports for the lasgun array on your compartment extensions.
4) Add lasguns.
5) Finally? Using a bit more plasticard, make a top for the newly extended compartment.
Paint to match original model.
And now you have a Chimera.

This is a joke, right?

“Simply rebuild your model into a different, bigger model” is class advice.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“Simply rebuild your model into a different, bigger model” is class advice.

Especially when an intact Salamander will sell for $2-300 on ebay!

 Jidmah wrote:


What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?

I too have a big mek on bike, waaagh banner on bike and painboy on a bike and run them as biker nobz or leaders of the warbikers squads. Their weapons are still perfect count as for choppas, big choppas and power klaws. The banner is just for aesthetics purpose, I don't see any issue here.

I also have kombi skorcha and big choppa, I simply use the model like he was equipped with either one of those instead of both.

Lootas are legal up to 36 of them. It's not ideal of course but I'm always against the concept of owning that many models from specialists/vehicles and maxing them out. Like I don't think it was a real problem for the majority of players when stormboyz dropped from max 90 to max 60 and mek gunz from max 18 to max 9. Maxing things out is a choice.

Buggies you can put them on a base, add extra weapons from the spared bitz box and run them as perfect conversions of the new buggies. I've seen plenty of those. Or, you can keep them as they are, along with the big gunz in case you might want to play a retro game. Also those are quite popular where I am and I still play 3rd edition games sometimes.

The third jet you can play in a larger game. Sometimes people do that. Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?

You mean some combinations of loadout are now illegal? The units still exist, run them as they are. They'd be counts as/proxy but not that unreasonable. A plague marine is a plague marine, a terminator is a terminator. Just bring the list (and this is much more important that WYSIWYG IMHO, I might refuse to play against someone that doesn't provide the list), so there would be no confusion.

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?

I too have a big mek on bike, waaagh banner on bike and painboy on a bike and run them as biker nobz or leaders of the warbikers squads. Their weapons are still perfect count as for choppas, big choppas and power klaws.

I already have plenty of bikers and leaders for them, and let's face it - nob bikers are both on life support and garbage unless you want to exploit the AoR rules, which means I'm also using those as warbikers.
Oh, and the two warbiker mobs I have got shrunken down this edition as well, which apparently is also my fault.

So I got six extra warbikers, five extra nob bikers, a big mek, a waagh! banner, two docs... oops, that's more than the 27 warbikers I'm allowed to field.

It's also highly hypocritical to treat spamming units as a solution, while also preaching that highlander games are the one way to play "true" 40k.

The banner is just for aesthetics purpose, I don't see any issue here.

No issue besides attaching a 3" pole to a biker so everyone can shoot him, while also freaking out when I measure LoS from that banner, of course.

I also have kombi skorcha and big choppa, I simply use the model like he was equipped with either one of those instead of both.

Honestly, I would ask you to remove that model from the battlefield. It's absolutely not clear what wargear it is equipped with, especially if you have multiple of those like me. It breaks all the rules you defined yourself for counts-as and proxying.

Lootas are legal up to 36 of them. It's not ideal of course but I'm always against the concept of owning that many models from specialists/vehicles and maxing them out. Like I don't think it was a real problem for the majority of players when stormboyz dropped from max 90 to max 60 and mek gunz from max 18 to max 9. Maxing things out is a choice.

You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated?
I bought a collection another player and ended up with 30 lootas, as almost every ork player owns a squad of them, and no one built those worthless spannas up till now.
Fun fact, your extra lootas also get invalidated if you didn't max them out, because you don't have enough spannas to field them. I now have at least 6 lootas I can't field no matter how I cut the mobs, even if I would turn a blind eye to morale issues. And no, there aren't any bitz left to build more after a decade.

Buggies you can put them on a base, add extra weapons from the spared bitz box and run them as perfect conversions of the new buggies.

No, because that ruins the model's paint job, looks like gak and still doesn't even remotely look like any of the buggies. Oh, and I already have plenty of the other buggies because I like those models - unless you are now being a hypocrite and suddenly suggesting maxing out things as a solution.
Might as well tell people to melt down their obsolete models and recast them into other models.

I've seen plenty of those.

Pictures or it didn't happen. I frequent a lot of galleries of people painting orks, and I did not see "plenty" of those, in fact I see hardly any at all.
Which is not surprising, considering how few people actually bought those models when they were legal.
Not to mention that these models have next to zero surface to actually glue anything to them at all.

Or, you can keep them as they are, along with the big gunz in case you might want to play a retro game. Also those are quite popular where I am and I still play 3rd edition games sometimes.

Yay, retro games!
Except I don't want to waste my precious game time to play an abandoned train wreck of an edition with messy rules, garbage internal balance and half my collection invalidated. There is nothing any old edition can do that 9th can't do at least just as good. I went back to play 5th once, and boy did I forget what a shitshow those rules were. It's like going back and watching that awesome kids show you used to watch, just to find out that it was hot garbage all along and not even nostalgic feelings can salvage it.
As for popularity, I haven't ever witnessed someone playing an old edition unless the current edition had just dropped.

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially telling people to pick between playing the game they enjoy and playing the models they enjoy as a solution

The third jet you can play in a larger game. Sometimes people do that. Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.

Larger games are a pain in the ass to play because they take too long. Period. But sure, double down on the victim blaming.

Sorry, blackie, but I really just wanted to show how "use counts as" is not a solution for invalidated models. I personally stopped caring about obsolete models, since GW has been gutting my collection with every single ork release. Either I sell them or put them in a display case, if it would bother me, I wouldn't buy models anymore.

However, you responses are quite shocking. You are being hypocritical, blame the hobbyists for owning "too many" models and accept absolutely no blame to GW for this.
None of your suggestions are actual solutions. They are just a way of telling someone to "get rekt", while kicking them in the nuts and flipping them off. I wonder why that is.

Deadnight wrote:

As to the bolded - Are ye not able to say 'they all have combi-flamers (or whatever) and leave it at that?

thats exactly the problem, you can't give a whole squad the same (non combi-bolter) combi weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

You mean some combinations of loadout are now illegal? The units still exist, run them as they are. They'd be counts as/proxy but not that unreasonable. A plague marine is a plague marine, a terminator is a terminator. Just bring the list (and this is much more important that WYSIWYG IMHO, I might refuse to play against someone that doesn't provide the list), so there would be no confusion.

alright, lets say i bring a terminator squad that was legal in 8th : everything with Combi-Plasma + Chainaxe.

what they actually are is :

Champion : Accursed weapon + combimelta
1 : combibolter + powerfist
2 : combiflamer + powerfist
3 : combibolter + powerfist
4 : combibolter + chainfist

So i lose 2 guys to shooting, now i gotta figure out which ones of my identically equipped termis is actually the ones with which weapon that i'm willign to lose. Its tedious to track, for both players

 Jidmah wrote:

You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated?

No moral high ground of course, people can do whatever they want with their stuff/money and I totally respect it. But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway. With GW this is likely going to happen to a lot of stuff, so maxing things out is always a risk. I mean, it's better having rule of 2 on the planes with 1 or more good profiles than no restrictions and terrible profiles, like a stompa. In that case you wouldn't play a single one of your planes.

 Jidmah wrote:

Yay, retro games!
Except I don't want to waste my precious game time to play an abandoned train wreck of an edition with messy rules, garbage internal balance and half my collection invalidated. There is nothing any old edition can do that 9th can't do at least just as good. I went back to play 5th once, and boy did I forget what a shitshow those rules were. It's like going back and watching that awesome kids show you used to watch, just to find out that it was hot garbage all along and not even nostalgic feelings can salvage it.
As for popularity, I haven't ever witnessed someone playing an old edition unless the current edition had just dropped.

I'd also like to point out that you are essentially telling people to pick between playing the game they enjoy and playing the models they enjoy as a solution

I do play 3rd edition, and I'm sure I'm not the only one even on this forum. I still think it's the best version of 40k. What I'm saying is that there's isn't just one game. Playing the current version is easier of course, much easier, and it's perfectly fine if someone only wants to stick with modern rules. Still older versions do exist and they are a solution. Maybe a solution you're not interested in though, also perfectly fine.

 Jidmah wrote:

However, you responses are quite shocking. You are being hypocritical, blame the hobbyists for owning "too many" models and accept absolutely no blame to GW for this.
None of your suggestions are actual solutions. They are just a way of telling someone to "get rekt", while kicking them in the nuts and flipping them off. I wonder why that is.

I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer. I have to respect their opinions though, and I do even if I disagree about a lot of things. I blame GW for something like their prices, their reluctancy to release the codexes all at once and digital, or when they put things OOP all of a sudden.

Now we live in an era of very frequent changes, and I love it as long as they are free. It means that for players is much harder to jump on the band wagon because the risk of having everything nerfed into the ground is too high. In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army. It makes the game much healthier, and if that means that players who own 10k or more of a single faction (and I'm also talking about myself) or those who play skew armies (also me) have now some limitations on their collections, even harsh ones, I'll take it.

Besides if an ork player is scared/disgusted of fielding an army of "outdated" models I wonder what the game has become. Orks have always been the faction of scratch built stuff and conversions, even in the codex and the battle reports on WD there was lots of non official models pictured. Now it's perfectly fine if someone wants to stick with official models, even an ork player of course. But to see an ork player, especially a long time player, that is so close minded towards unofficial models really makes me wonder if we're talking about the same game and the same hobby. I can't accept that everyone thinks that the standard game now is just like a tournament game, with all the house rules and restrictions that tournaments have.

Of course if you're only interested in playing like that, and again even if I don't like that way of thinking I respect people's opinions so it's perfectly fine, then yes there's no solution for obsolete models, you have to shelve them permanently or to sell them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


alright, lets say i bring a terminator squad that was legal in 8th : everything with Combi-Plasma + Chainaxe.

what they actually are is :

Champion : Accursed weapon + combimelta
1 : combibolter + powerfist
2 : combiflamer + powerfist
3 : combibolter + powerfist
4 : combibolter + chainfist

So i lose 2 guys to shooting, now i gotta figure out which ones of my identically equipped termis is actually the ones with which weapon that i'm willign to lose. Its tedious to track, for both players

Exactly, it's not ideal. Even tedious maybe. But it can be done, and not a problem for someone. I don't see any significant advantage for the opponent in having perfect knowledge about what was the exact loadout of the 2 guys killed and how the remaining 3 are actually equipped, they all have basically the same stats. Just the campion is a bit different, and the champion is the last man standing.

 Blackie wrote:
But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway.

The difference is that not every game is the finals of a hardcore competitive tournament. If a unit is merely bad I can still take it as long as the rest of my list is good, if a unit is illegal it isn't an option at all.

I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer.

Utter nonsense. Some of those things (like basing table sizes on GW's standard cardboard box dimensions) are bad but not all of them. Legends rules are broken and should be banned by default, base and model sizes matter in a game with measurements from bases and true line of sight to and from models, and WYSIWYG is an important part of a game as complicated as 40k.

In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army.

Which is great, right up until you encounter the meta chaser with a bottomless wallet who does do those things and you're in a constant arms race you can never compete in. Change for the sake of change is a fundamentally stupid approach to game design and it is not an acceptable substitute for publishing functioning and balanced rules.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

The difference is that not every game is the finals of a hardcore competitive tournament. If a unit is merely bad I can still take it as long as the rest of my list is good, if a unit is illegal it isn't an option at all.

True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?

There's a youtube channel that I sometimes watch, Strikinscorpion82, in which the guy owning it posts awesome battle reports. He sometimes plays orks, and he fields a looted razorback and a leman russ as trukks. They were looted wagon in the older edition so they're kitted with the kill kannon and they're definitely not exactly as tall or wide as the official trukk model. But we're talking about mm, and for many players such changes don't make any difference. How hard is it to ignore the actual cannons and aknowledge that since those models are trukks they only have one big shoota instead? He also plays with a FW warboss on bike as leader of his bikers, even if the model's massive compared to the actual nob, the bikers are all on the older bases, so are all the infantry models and even the koptas, still on round 60mm and not the current oval ones. Are his games really that different from tournament ones just because a large chunk of his army differs in mm compared to what's supposed to be official? Are his games somehow dimished, or not even real games, because of that? I honestly don't think so.

Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament. Your words.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Which is great, right up until you encounter the meta chaser with a bottomless wallet who does do those things and you're in a constant arms race you can never compete in. Change for the sake of change is a fundamentally stupid approach to game design and it is not an acceptable substitute for publishing functioning and balanced rules.

Same as before, refusing to play against some players is possible. You're not obliged to play against him like it was an actual competition. There's no point in playing against a meta chaser who field the best build of the moment if you can't compete. If we're talking about friendly games playing with people that share the same mentality is the key for a fun experience.

All I'm saying, the OP asked "What do you do with obsolete models"? The answer is: there is no official solution because how people play and what people expect from their gaming experience might be extremely different. For me counts as/proxies, playing a retro game, etc... are all legit options which I personally adopt. For others such options might not be a solution, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't mean they're not legit options to consider. As I said people might not have the same goals for their gaming experience.

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated?

No moral high ground of course, people can do whatever they want with their stuff/money and I totally respect it. But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway. With GW this is likely going to happen to a lot of stuff, so maxing things out is always a risk. I mean, it's better having rule of 2 on the planes with 1 or more good profiles than no restrictions and terrible profiles, like a stompa. In that case you wouldn't play a single one of your planes.

Short term, you are right. My kanz have been sitting my display case and have been gathering dust since 5th, and the stompa is one of the few models I don't own for that very reason.
Long term, you are completely wrong though. After their long hiatus, I'm currently painting up those kanz I magnetized a decade ago because they finally got decent rules again. Same for the planes - due to being magnetized, they never went to the display case for long, during almost every edition at least one of the configurations was viable.

Something that gets removed from the codex is gone forever, and will never come back. Unless you are particularly fond of the model, there is no reason to keep it.

Still older versions do exist and they are a solution. Maybe a solution you're not interested in though, also perfectly fine.

Another thing you are completely and unmistakenly wrong about. Losing models is not a solution to losing models, and whenever you go back to an older edition, you lose everything new. For most players who started in 8th or later, this means losing their entire army. For any healthy group which spreads the hobby and regularly welcomes newcomers, going back is not an solution, and almost definitely not a "perfectly fine" one.

 Jidmah wrote:
I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer. I have to respect their opinions though, and I do even if I disagree about a lot of things. I blame GW for something like their prices, their reluctancy to release the codexes all at once and digital, or when they put things OOP all of a sudden.

The issue is that you generalize everyone's arguments into "following GW blindly", pass judgement on it and then discard them as invalid after fitting them into your neat little mental drawers.
- Our group doesn't play 2000 points anymore, especially with 9th edition actively supporting smaller games and crusade actively encouraging them, 2000 points only happen when there is an odd amount of players.
- No matter what GW's reason for the smaller boards was, we thoroughly evaluated the new table sizes against the tables we had and found the 60x44 boards to be superior to 6x4 ones. Many of us enjoy melee units and armies, and running towards a gunline is no fun at all. The smaller boards prevent artillery from staying out of reach of infantry units with no effort whatsoever, which made us change to the smaller boards. Especially during the pandemic the smaller boards were a blessing because many of us could suddenly fit a cardboard gaming board on their dining table who couldn't before.
- *I* personally reject to use legends for *my* models because I feel it gives me unfair advantages over my opponent, and I know quite a few people who would gladly exploit such advantages if they could. If legends was properly maintained, I'd have zero issues with it, but GW can't even properly maintain the rules for FW, so who am I kidding. It's also a matter of fact that people rejecting legends mostly exist in hypothetical scenarios found in dakka posts.
- In the age of 3D printing and an abundance of 3rd party modeling companies, no one cares about the exact dimensions of a model. Having printed models on the table is just as common as daemon princes and daemonettes with square bases are. The one thing that decides whether a model is ok or not is the rule of cool. "This tiny buggy with a plasma cannon glued to its driver is a SJD" is not cool.
- The reason why we use WYSIWYG almost exclusively despite it explicitly being voluntary for our games is that it's just simple. PL combined with WYSIWYG is just perfect for playing dadhammer 40k. You just bring the units you want to bring and figure out their equipment by looking at them. You'll find out that your game consists a lot less of "what are these equipped with?" and "I thought those were flamers" and much more quality game time.

You discarded all these conscious decisions as "bad" and "cancer", because you refuse to accept any viewpoint but your own.

Now we live in an era of very frequent changes, and I love it as long as they are free. It means that for players is much harder to jump on the band wagon because the risk of having everything nerfed into the ground is too high. In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army. It makes the game much healthier, and if that means that players who own 10k or more of a single faction (and I'm also talking about myself) or those who play skew armies (also me) have now some limitations on their collections, even harsh ones, I'll take it.

Not really. There are people who have a high end airbrush system and 3d printers, whales who just own everything in their faction(s) three times anyways and those who can scratchbuild or kitbash everything and paint models to a tabletop standard while asleep. These people can switch to whatever, whenever they want. Meanwhile, invalidating models makes it harder for those with less time and/or money to keep up.
Consider yourself lucky to not have such issues in your group, but you are the exception, not the norm.

Besides if an ork player is scared/disgusted of fielding an army of "outdated" models I wonder what the game has become. Orks have always been the faction of scratch built stuff and conversions, even in the codex and the battle reports on WD there was lots of non official models pictured. Now it's perfectly fine if someone wants to stick with official models, even an ork player of course. But to see an ork player, especially a long time player, that is so close minded towards unofficial models really makes me wonder if we're talking about the same game and the same hobby. I can't accept that everyone thinks that the standard game now is just like a tournament game, with all the house rules and restrictions that tournaments have.

A strawman to support a "no true scotsman", peppered with ad hominem and some good old boomer tournament hate. Spicy!
I literally wrote none of that, and therefore will not respond to any of it. Attacking me in such an emotional way just for not agreeing with you says a lot about you though.

Of course if you're only interested in playing like that, and again even if I don't like that way of thinking I respect people's opinions so it's perfectly fine, then yes there's no solution for obsolete models, you have to shelve them permanently or to sell them.

Ooh, let me misrepresent your argument in the same way you did mine:
If you shout down everyone who dares to disagree with your interpretation of the unquestionable ambiguous rules, consider the content of your trashcan a valid proxy an eldar army, don't care whether models are painted, based, assembled or even unboxed, you play the with the same three people who never get a new partner, have kids, change jobs, have to take care of parents or change for any other reason for the last and next 20 years, new players are actively driven away to not pollute your pristine wargaming, see no issues with disembarking McFarlane MANz glued to 10" blast templates from a regular sized trukk, exclusively play 10000 point open war games with no army constraints whatsoever, no one you play with every buys more than one box of anything and you can and all your boards are at least 360'x110', then, without doubt, "counts as" is the right solution for every model-related issue.

<US commercial voice on>
Your army is bad? Count them as the current op stuff!
Your opponent can't identify what your models are equpped with? Just glue more bits to them until your opponent can't even tell which units they represent!
Are you completely incompetent at modeling and scratch building? Don't worry, no matter how terrible your skills are, you can just count it as any ork vehicle you want, because orks are about having vehicles that look like gak!
Internal balance sucks? Count your nobz as manz, your lootas as kommandoz, your nob bikers as squig riders and your battlewagon as kill rigs, allowing you to field the current tournament hotness to crush the dreams of your friends using your benched models!
Hate painting? Count your models as painted!
Your 3d print failed and left you with an unidentifiable blob of resin? Put some googly eyes on it and have it count as looted wagon that counts as baneblade that counts as kill tank!
Losing the game? Just count yourself as the winner!
Call 555-COUNTS-AS today!

 Blackie wrote:
True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?

There is an immense difference between not taking a perfectly optimized netlist and having to negotiate rule changes.

How hard is it to ignore the actual cannons and aknowledge that since those models are trukks they only have one big shoota instead?

Very hard because it looks stupid. They're obviously tanks with significant weapons, not flimsy transports with a token light machine gun. Proxying is not a solution here.

Same as before, refusing to play against some players is possible. You're not obliged to play against him like it was an actual competition. There's no point in playing against a meta chaser who field the best build of the moment if you can't compete. If we're talking about friendly games playing with people that share the same mentality is the key for a fun experience.

Do you honestly not understand why it's a bad thing that you have to refuse games against certain people because GW sucks at writing rules?

Goreshrek wrote:
So a few years ago you spent lots of time lovingly converting/modifying a model to match a particular entry in your codex or IA book. Then comes a new codex, and poof, that configuration is now illegal, or at best really bad. What do you do with the model?
Park in in the back of your shelf / case and forget it?
Try to convert it again into something current?
trash it?

Examples: Ork Big Mek on bike, big trakk with supa-skorcha, metal Ghazghull. but I would think most armies have something similar. Do you have an example from your collection?

Since his release the metal Goff warboss is serving as my Bad Moonz warboss. Combination of mega armour and power klaw was the selling point.

 Blackie wrote:
True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?

All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that.
Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.

Speaking of worms, these are my DG chaos spawns. Which parts of them are shootable in your opinion? Feel free to draw a diagram to make it absolutely clear for every possible direction. Base size is 50mm by the way, the same as for the spawns currently sold.


This should also debunk your "jidmah hates inofficial models" nonsense.

Some people just don't want every game they play to look like this (actual game I played):


Now, I'd kindly ask you to stop making baseless assumption and talking gak about people.

 Blackie wrote:
... demanding the minimum table size...

Don't be so naive. That was entirely by design.

 Jidmah wrote:
Some people just don't want every game they play to look like this (actual game I played):

Spoiler:

My mind rebels at the sight of it...

 Blackie wrote:

I don't see any significant advantage for the opponent in having perfect knowledge about what was the exact loadout of the 2 guys killed and how the remaining 3 are actually equipped, they all have basically the same stats. Just the campion is a bit different, and the champion is the last man standing.

i mean, theres a pretty fuckin huge difference between a chainfist + combi melta vs accursed weapon + combibolter.

and usually, my sargeant dies before my special weapons.

i guess we both approach the game differently tho, even if i play casually, i want to make good informed decisions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that.
Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.

to be fair, thats an absolutely stupid rule that prevents cool modeling, i usually only count the main body as shootable and when i do count-as (osirion contemptor as a helbrute for example), i'll approximate the size (benefitting my opponent when in doubt)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that.
Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.

to be fair, thats an absolutely stupid rule that prevents cool modeling, i usually only count the main body as shootable and when i do count-as (osirion contemptor as a helbrute for example), i'll approximate the size (benefitting my opponent when in doubt)

Heavily depends on the opponent in my case. Some insist on shooting the banner and will also insist that you take the shot at a tip of a spear barely visible through six ruins because they can hit it with their laser pointer, others will never shoot banners or wings on principle, others will not take any shot that isn't absolutely clear and very few will flip-flop their opinion depending on how well the game is going for them

The point is that people are fully in their right to shoot that banner according to the current rules, and there isn't really a reason for me to bring that one potentially problematic model when I have more than 30 other models that can count as warbikes at home. Heck, I just found another six bikers on sprues in my bitz box, I blame GW for putting them in every other box set.
Just sucks for all the work I did grinding through WHFB orc payer's bitz to get the stuff I wanted.

Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:

Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight

I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:

Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight

I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?

Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.

Always play them as 'counts as'. Models *never* become obsolete!

(Squats simply 'count as' a lost brigade of IG!)

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:

Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight

I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?

Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.

No thanks. I'd rather not venture into Dakka's containment cell for wannabe lawyers and people trying to get an edge by parsing every last comma and apostrophe. Bad for both one's sanity and blood pressure.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No thanks. I'd rather not venture into Dakka's containment cell for wannabe lawyers and people trying to get an edge by parsing every last comma and apostrophe. Bad for both one's sanity and blood pressure.

I'd rather meet Nightlords IRL than go there lol

Great. Now I have an image in my head of a Night Lord cowering above an archway, preying on two people playing 40k with a badly translated Spanish version of a White Dwarf in one hand and an oxford dictionary in the other.

If it's only a simple weapon swap, I might try to change it over to make it legal/viable. Otherwise it goes in the cabinet as a display piece and waits for the day it gets to be relevant again.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:

Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.

Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight

I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?

Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.

The rules debates that happen in YMDC rarely have any relevance to the real world. I've literally never met anyone in over 20 years of gaming who would have a problem with that rule in HH. Up until 8th edition, 40k used pretty much the same rule. Personally I always view rules like that as a handy opponent test. If they're going to try to rules lawyer and argue over the definition of a banner I have better things to do with my time than play them. Again, assuming such people actually exist in the real world in any relevant numbers.