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.

Where is there permission to use a model that GW doesn't make a specific model for?

Guess you can't give Sanguinary Priests any options besides chainswords and bolt pistols.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

lol. Ahh permissive ruleset. That's a good fallback when you have no other argument.

The fact is that although the models tell you that you have to use Citadel Miniatures, they never tell you which ones or what you need to do with them. You are assuming that when they say Citadel Miniatures, they mean the ones of the same name. There is, however, no RAW to backup your assumption. Just as there is no RAW that says you can assemble, paint, convert, kitbash, remove from sprue or otherwise manipulate (other than to glue it to the base) a stock citadel model.

I am not saying that I have RAW to support my contention that you can modify miniatures. I am in fact saying the opposite. Neither side of the MFA argument has any RAW to back them up because the rules are completely silent on miniatures except for two things:
- Models = Citadel Miniatures
- Models should be attached to the base they came with

Anything regarding models outside of those two points is speculation or assumption and not RAW.

In the FAQ they don't address the Sanguinor's weapon. They do address the Glaive Encarmines as being two distinct options. it's difficult to claim MFA when there is a pretty massive disadvantage. The fact is power axes and swords cost the same and give advantages and disadvantages. Until a rule comes out that clearly states which of the two options are available to Sanguinor the rules are written in a way that the hobbyist can give him a bad ass axe.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

So the Doom of Malantai is illegal to field. As is the Paradite of Mortrex. And Shrikes. And flying Rippers. And Tyranid Primes.

That's just out of the codex I'm most familiar with.

Sang Priests in TDA
Razorbacks with anything but HB/TLL
Rifleman Dreads
Penal Legionaires
Medusa
Colossus
Griffin
Bane Wolf
Devil Dog
Vendetta



Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's a ton of stuff that has no citadel model.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to i produced the rules that allow you to use the sanguinor model made by citadel. You need permission to use a different model. Show me that and then raw you can. It is a permissive ruleset.

So the Doom of Malantai is illegal to field. As is the Paradite of Mortrex. And Shrikes. And flying Rippers. And Tyranid Primes.

That's just out of the codex I'm most familiar with.

Tyranid Primes, Parasite of Mortrex, Doom of Malan'tai Ymgarl Genestealers, Mycetic Spores, Tyranid Shrikes, Flying Ripper Swarms and Harpies. I'm at work so I don't have the codex handy. Did I miss anything, rigeld?

I am using this model for The Sanguinor, because I like the look of him.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1160025a

He is a Citadel Mini and is allowed by the RAW.

Well to be more accurate, He is a Citadel Mini and the RAW provides no guidance on which Citadel Minis should be used for which units.

I think that guy looks way more badass as Sang than the actual Sang though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am using this model for The Sanguinor, because I like the look of him.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1160025a

He is a Citadel Mini and is allowed by the RAW.

Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Edit: I think clipping the cup out of Sanguinor's Right hand and replacing it with the axe from the Sanguinary Guard that's being 1 handed, and then clip the sword from the left hand and replace with one of the empty hands, also from the Sang Guard set. Should be pretty easy to do and come out looking great.
More importantly, I've got plenty of spare Sang Axes, because I'm giving all more guard all power fists.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Rules reference please? WYSIWYG is a player convention and not RAW.

 pretre wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Unless you play WYSIWYG, then that guy is Astorath the Grim, and using him as another valid HQ choice in the same army isn't WYSIWYG. I'd rather see a converted model that doesn't look like Astorath.

Rules reference please? WYSIWYG is a player convention and not RAW.

Awesome. So I can use grots as my Land Raider, my Chaos Terminators, and my Cultists. Don't worry, I can tell which is which.

-Matt

Exactly, there are no rules to prevent that. Which model you use and how you assemble, paint, convert, etc are all part of player convention.

Being that they are part of player convention, you will find it difficult to play games when you use grots as land raiders as most people won't dig on it. Astorath as Sanguinor? Many more people will find it acceptable, although some will still protest (many fewer than you would think if you use the internet as a guide).

Or, as I have said before, there are no rules covering this. Either your opponent will play you or not.

It come down to this:

"The Sanguinor

WARGEAR:…Glaive Encarmine."
C:BA pg. 51

"Q: Are Glaive Encarmines treated as ‘unusual power weapons’ (and therefore AP 3), or do they follow the rules for power axes/swords as defined by the type of weapon the model is carrying? (p50)
A: Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed special rules. They would therefore have the following profiles.
Glaive Encarmine (Sword)
Range S AP Type
- User 3 Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed.

Glaive Encarmine (Axe)
Range S AP Type
- +1 2 Melee, Master-crafted, Two-handed."
BA FAQ

Now, we don't have precedence for this. We've scene unique characters who have different options you can choose and pay ponts for, but iirc we've never scene a unique character who has an item on his set list of gear that isn't specifically one thing or another. A Glaive Encarmine, as defined by GW, can be either a sword or an axe. The Sangiuonor's list of war gear merely states that he has a Glaive Encarmine. Until and unless the Sanguinor's wargear gets FAQ'd, there is nothing prohibiting one from modeling him with a Glaive Encarmine (axe). Sorry, there just isn't. There are plenty of unit choices that are not sold with every option. The Sanguinor was released well before 6th when axe or sword made no difference. They've had plenty of time to FAQ his wargear list if they wanted to.

In conclusion, we have very specific and cited rules telling us that a Glaive Encarmine is either a sword or an axe. I've not been able to find, either in the brb or on dakka, any rules that would lead me to believe that one cannot give the Sangionor a Glaive Encarmine (axe). Again, this is a somewhat unprecedented conundrum. If anyone can find a rule, a specific official rule with page numbers to match, that sates otherwise, I would very much like to see these rules.

Thanks dakka.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Exactly, there are no rules to prevent that. Which model you use and how you assemble, paint, convert, etc are all part of player convention.

Being that they are part of player convention, you will find it difficult to play games when you use grots as land raiders as most people won't dig on it. Astorath as Sanguinor? Many more people will find it acceptable, although some will still protest (many fewer than you would think if you use the internet as a guide).

Or, as I have said before, there are no rules covering this. Either your opponent will play you or not.

Well said.

Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

No, because no such RAW exists. And it cannot exist, otherwise the game breaks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

There is no prohibition or even direction as to which Citadel Models should be used to represent which units in the rules. Unless of course you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.

Yes you you can have the sanguinor with an axe as long as you have a sanguinor citadel miniature with an axe (remembering conversions and kit bashes are no longer citadel miniatures...

Wrong, conversions made with citadel products are still citadel models(all citadel parts)

So use a GW axe and you are good to go.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you you can have the sanguinor with an axe as long as you have a sanguinor citadel miniature with an axe (remembering conversions and kit bashes are no longer citadel miniatures...

I repeat myself:
There is no prohibition or even direction as to which Citadel Models should be used to represent which units in the rules. Unless, of course, you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.

Also, there is no prohibition or even direction on conversions and kitbashes in the rules. Unless, of course, you would like to provide a page number for yet another of your unfounded assertions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes by raw units that do not have citadel miniatures to represent them can not be used.

That is not correct. It just says "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' "P. 2

 FlingitNow wrote:
nor can options not straight out of the box. And yes you have to use the sanguinor model as the sanguinor by raw as you have no permission to use anything else.

That is also incorrect.

There are no rules covering assembly, painting, or converting miniatures.

I have consistently made clear that you are perfectly free to reject any miniature (citadel or not) that an opponent puts in front of you. This is player convention and is often called 'WYSIWYG', 'MFA' or whatever. This is a clear example of HYWPI because none of it exists in the rules.

I have also made clear that there are no rules governing the consistency, creation, assembly, painting, modelling, kitbashing, converting, etc of models for use with Warhammer 40k with the exception that they must be 'Citadel Miniatures' and 'Placed on an appropriate base'. This is the Rules as Written.

If you dispute my interpretation of the Rules as Written, please provide page references with your dispute.

It tells us to use citadel miniatures. The sanguinor tells us he's a sanguinor. So i have permission to use the sanguinor as the sanguinor. Now show me permission you have to use something else. If you can't you are conceding the point.

Note how the rules don't tell me to not take off all your models as casualties in turn 1. It doesn't tell me not to smash up your models with a hammer either. Does that mean i can do those things? No because it is a permissive rule set.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The sanguinor tells us he's a sanguinor. So i have permission to use the sanguinor as the sanguinor.

Citation needed.

Since you missed it the first time:

To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

It is a citadel mini just a poorly assembled one.

Here is the sum total of rules regarding miniatures for 40k:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer
40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models
represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines
and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their
differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.

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 a similar type as guidance.

Which part of that says which models you use, whether you can paint, assemble, convert, modify, model or kitbash? Which part says you cannot use citadel parts to make a new miniature? Etc, so on.

Perhaps you are having a glitch in your viewer interface.

 pretre wrote:
Since you missed it the first time:

To be REALLY clear here, FlingitNow. You are arguing HYWPI. You have not presented a single RAW argument or page number. We are talking RAW; you are talking HYWPI.

Please refer to the Tenets of YMDC

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Please observe the tenets of YMDC and provide a RAW response to our RAW debate or abstain.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Citadel miniature that is not assembled the way it was designed to be by citadel is no longer a citadel miniature.

Rules quote please. Tenet 4.

Thank you for conceding the point that raw is that sanguinor can't have an axe until citadel release a model of him with one.

You like to play it different to the raw and that is fine. But unless you can provide rules that allow you to use something other than the citadel miniature for the sanguinor you must use that model.