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.

First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.

I'm going to rephrase that one for you.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as allies models what they're really saying is "GW is too expensive, can I bring this model I already own instead?", not "can I use the allies rules for my awesome heresy era imperial army that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as allies stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.

You can try to legitimize it, but this is still a double standard. What you are trying to do is force decorum through banning. Most major tournaments with soft scores already do this anyway with different types of comp scoring. If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby. There are legitimate concerns with forge world entries in major tournies (mostly due to rules conflicts and the lack of FAQs or community vetting), but the idea that allowing it will just bring in a parade of bad counts as models ignores the fact that you already have that, and have for years.

This is why its a good thing that a rule allowing scratch builds and proxies is left in the subjective hands of the TO. Who hopefully has decent rule of cool standards.

If they don't, feel free to no longer go to that tournament.


From my experience, most TOs will enforce an acceptable line in the sand.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm going to rephrase that one for you.

Except I'd agree with your rephrase as well. There's a big counts-as problem with allies when you're talking about marine armies, and if "use the models I already own" means "some of these identical models are SW, some are BA" then no, you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Just like you shouldn't be able to proxy IG troops and a Valkyrie as Necron flyers because Necron flyerspam is awesome and you don't want to have to buy actual Necron flyers.

The only real difference here is that the cheap proxy problem seems to be less frequent with GW stuff so there's less need for a blanket ban to deal with it.

If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby.

At least the marine forces can be called a custom chapter and are WYSIWYG in equipment. After all, GW encourages you to paint your models however you like, so aesthetic things shouldn't interfere with WYSIWYG. The FW proxy problem, on the other hand, seems to consist more of stuff like using regular drop pods as dread pods which is NOT WYSIWYG and, in fact, is a case of modeling for advantage by using a smaller model which is less likely to mishap on arrival.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?

No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Just to broaden this abit, some Companies are following GW. Battlefront's Flames of War tournaments are now BF only models, I think this is because of the amount of 15mm WWII stuff out there. I think it's even harder to enforce, than say something where you own all the IP.

The FW stuff is just another Arm of GW, it's in the Same factory and use the same IP. It's a symbiotic relationship, FW pay nice licenses to GW and GW stuff White Dwarf with FW stuff.

The FW in tournaments argument is kind of moot, there are tournaments that do allow it, and tournaments that don't. Simple. I don't see why you need a case against FW at a tournament, it's seems kind of a rebel without of cause argument.

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

This is the key. FW or not!

Rule of Cool takes precedence.

Easy, easy. Rule of Cool generally requires TO preapproval. You don't get to show up to a tourney with cardboard cutouts, any more than with stock, poorly painted mm/fist dreads counting as contemptors.

Ninja'ed you by 2 seconds

But that's a fantastic point that I forgot about... for both Adepticon and Nova this year, I emailed ahead of time to get approval for my counts-as models. I believe this is a requirement for most major tournaments.

Solves the cardboard box problem, as if they show up with it, it says right in the packet that approval for counts-as models is required ahead of time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?".

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?".

That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool.

Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size.

And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all.

As long as they have some conversion work done then all of your examples should be ok to use. It's not ok however to plop down a land raider and say it is a battlefortress.

The key is conversions with effort.

Just using a landraider for a battlewagon/battlefortress. Not cool.

using a landraider with tons of orky bits and extra dakka as a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool

using a toy vehicle thats been all orkified to be a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool too.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool.

Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size.

And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all.

I think the logical part of the converted ironclad would be a weapon conversion, I'm not sure what else they're altering there. As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place. What I'm driving at here is that this is a double standard. Not all double standards are bad, exceptions often exist for a reason, but it should be treated plainly and with a minimum of hyperbole. Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum.

The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place.

It's not a complete ban, just, as a couple TOs just posted, requiring that all counts-as stuff be approved specifically by the TO. If you have a legitimate counts-as model you're fine. If you have a cheap proxy you're not invited.

Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum.

So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.

The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.

Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.

So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.

That seems reasonable.

Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.

Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C:SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.

On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C:SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.

On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.

The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.

Err, what armies/units exist outside of the FOC? The only ones I can think of are the Apocalypse-only units, and that's a deliberate choice to keep them out of normal 40k.

Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.

Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k"). Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth. There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth. There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying, RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.

Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition?

I saw portions of it, I was under the impression that it covered the IA apocalypse books and later.

:Edit:

I am now looking at these and they aren't particularly comprehensive.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k").

Ok, but those were a pretty obvious case of typos, not a deliberate decision to have units that exist outside the FOC. And what else was there besides the Contemptor?

Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times

Which units would those be? IIRC the only units that got rules in those books were the HQ characters (all marked as HQ options for a marine army) and units that were part of the special army lists at the end (all given in the appropriate FOC slot of the army list).

while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth.

What update do you need? I just looked at all the chapter tactics rules in both books and all of them work just fine. Some of the USRs might do different things, but that's not a rule conflict.

(Ok, technically there was one that gave Infiltrators and not Infiltrate, but if you're going to nitpick that difference then 40k is not the game for you.)

There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP

What rulings do you need? There's a default case for close combat weapons (STR: user, AP -). If it's a power weapon it follows the rules for unusual power weapons (STR: user, AP 3). There might be some cases were you might want a different AP value (just like we can argue all day that GW made the wrong call on various codex power weapons being axe/sword/etc) but there aren't any that actually cause a rule debate.

as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth.

What FAQ do you need? If it doesn't explicitly say "may trade for X book powers from Y disciplines" then you just have a default mastery level 1 psyker with specific powers that can't be exchanged. You might want to be able to take book powers, but it isn't a rule problem if you can't (just like IG psyker squads can't take book powers).

There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying,

This was fixed immediately after 6th was released. Every vehicle has hull points and unit type listed, and if it doesn't it will be added if you tell them about it.

(And, AFAIK, if anything has been missed, it's one of those random fluff-based units that nobody will ever use.)

RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.

Well, if you don't want to find it then we can't really discuss it. But in any case FW have said that they're working on 6th edition updates for that army list, so it's not a long-term problem. Just like how it didn't stop people from running tournaments when GW published 6th and failed miserably at immediately covering every problem with the updates.

TO's need to be consistent in maintaining "rule of cool" standards with standard codex conversions and "counts-as" before expanding to FW units.

It was on this very site a year or two ago that I read a batrep with a leafblower-esque army that had hydras with plastic soda straws for autocannons. I believe it was even on the top table and may have placed. I've also been to GT's that advertize "3 color minimum and based models" yet with one pass through the hall can fins several armies with unpainted or unfinished models.

Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.

FW has not been allowed in any of the tournaments in my region as long as I've been playing. If you plug in our zip code into the GW store finder (14617), the closest GW store is 89 miles away and in another country (Canada). None of our independent retailers offer a selection of FW models or books. Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away. Not order, wait for shipping, look for someone that will let them use it, and petition for a local event to allow them. Independent retailers locally have no incentive to allow FW. It creates excitement about a product they don't offer and can detract sales from the items they do offer.

Like I said before, my stance is this:

We're playing a game and participating in a hobby that is based on fluff that's been written, re-written, and expanded over decades. Despite that, how many instances in the fluff will you find GK battling GK, or SW and IG fighting IG and SW? In the grim dark of the distant future there is only war, and it's almost always between good guys and bad guys with a few exceptions. The fact that tournaments are against the nature of the game and encourage good guys to battle other good guys further widens the gap between fluff and reality.

GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.

"Just let people play with all their toys" is fine and dandy. But when you incorporate an expansion line such as FW who provide dozens of toys for one guy and none for another leads to some pretty obvious effects. The guys who play armies that FW neglects will become discouraged and may not attend FW-friendly events. By attempting to make an event more inclusive, you will be excluding others. There's another portion who will flock to the imperial armies who have all the fun FW toys and xenos representation will further diminish.

When people stop playing the "bad guys", events will feature "good guys" vs "good guys" all day long. I know it happens now to a degree, but the gap will widen. GW will further distance themselves from the tournament scene as the games taking place will not be representative of their story line or vision of the grim dark future.

GW's ToS event was a great attempt to get back to their vision. Rewarding the best player of each codex encouraged people to venture away from their standard tournament armies and bring diversity back.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.

Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.

Plus, as has been mentioned already, many of the Imperial units are redundant ones, either because they're fluff-focused stuff like powerlifter Sentinels (a Sentinel with no gun used for moving cargo), or because the army already has so many top-tier options that the FW one doesn't make much of an impact. The xenos units, on the other hand, tend to be fewer in number but a higher proportion of them are things you'll actually want to use. So while, for example, IG get a couple units that might make it into a tournament list Tau get several new fast attack options, interesting new troops choices, and their only AA unit. In the end allowing FW gives a much larger benefit to the Tau player than to the IG player.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.

Sure. I agree entirely with that, and I really wish that tournaments would strictly enforce painting and scratchbuilding rules to ban that garbage.

Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away.

So tournament rules should be based on impatient players who can't stop impulse buying? Should we also ban stuff like the character models you can only get from GW online and not at your FLGS?

The whole point about "availability" was that supposedly FW units are hard to get, not that people decide not to buy them. And of course it's a terrible argument to make in 2012 when online shopping is trivially easy.

In regards to the count as units, I want to use FW hyperios defence launchers in a up coming tourny (quite a important one as it has teams from the england and wales ETC boys) and I didnt want to pay 21GBP per model for each launcher, so I bought and converted two count as cyclone missile launchers, would this be ok by some of your standards? or would this be looked at as being too cheap to buy FW

I would have to see what you built but if they are about as big as whirlwind missile launchers they would probably be ok.