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.

Also, I would think that using that logic, It would be best if you used an OrkDefenceLine or ODL, then clarified what it is and how it works. Also would it be MFA if you put a platform on the back of a ADL?

yes please stay on topic [but you did ask where and i simply showed you where]

This is, and will be my only post on Dakka.

I've lurked off and on for five years and every time a new codex comes out I hop on over to YMDC too see what sort of issues are cropping up so that I and my group may have a little perspective on issues we've been having.

Often I find helpful information, thought provoking rules analysis, or something in between.

But then there are threads like this.

The OP asked a question, he received feedback, and shared his own thoughts on the matter. One would think the thread ends here, right? Wrong. The YMDC strike team then proceeds to do everything they can to tell OP how his idea to create interesting fortifications that fit the theme of his army is illegal, against the spirit of the game and just generally wrong.

I'm flabbergasted.

I know the OP already knows this, but I feel there are some Dakkanauts who have tens of thousands of posts who have forgotten that this is a hobby. This game (be it the building, the painting, the playing of) is ultimately a way for us to pass the time with friends while admiring our hard work and imagining fantastic sci-fi combat.

Are the rules important? Yes, they are the frame which allows us to enjoy this aspect of our hobby.
Are the rules perfect and all encompassing? No, they will never cover every situation or scenario.
Should the rule book be the final word on what we can and can't do within our shared hobby? No. Never. The beauty of this hobby is the freedom it allows us to create, to imagine, and ultimately to have fun.

Reading through this thread, I-I-It hurts my soul, it really does. To think that there are so much negativity, so much arguing and so much passive aggressive *CITATION REQUIRED*

I believe this thread should just be locked. It's clear where opinions lie, the OP is no longer interested nor concerned, and nothing of value is being produced.

tl;dr - Can't we all just agree to disagree and encourage people to enjoy their hobbies and get back to solving rule riddles?

If you can shoot with your gretchins, then you can be shoot back... i think it's a fair trade. A totally different thing is this, for instance

if you don't treat it as having the same height as a standard Wraithlord

So I'm with the OP by allowing a custom Gretchin made ADL.

"The YMDC strike team then proceeds to do everything they can to tell OP how his idea to create interesting fortifications that fit the theme of his army is illegal, against the spirit of the game and just generally wrong.

"
Please retract that, as that is NOT what has happened. Your misrepresentation of the position is frustrating - you clearly havent ACTUALLY read the points raised

The OP asked if it was MFA, when they have expressly styated they are Modelling NOT FOR LOOKS but to GAIN AN ADVANTAGE

The obvious answer is the one that you seem to have a problem with - that it is, indeed, MFA. The OP stated as much in their post, so I really dont understand your ragequit post, or others for that matter

Orkimedes - then you cannot buy an ADL, but have to bring along terrain and hope you get to place it. You also dont get a gun, as only an ADL gets a gun.

 insaniak wrote:

Unless someone is really taking the micky, it's easier to just use the model you have, as is, and get on with the game. We have so many examples of models significantly changing size (Eldar Avatar, Trukks, Battlewagons, Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, pretty much every Tyranid creature ever made, Daemon Princes, Mega-armoured Orks, Sentinels... it goes on) or having different LOS profiles depending on how they are assembled that it does seem like GW aren't overly concerned with the differences in the game that such things create.

Which is exactly why I think it is absurd to require custom terrain conform exactly to the height of the GW kit; there are already much more significant variances among the stock models.

They really should have not given the plastic kit and the game object the same name in this case. There should have been game object "Defence Line" and then plastic kit "Imperial Aegis Defence Line." That way it would've been clear that it is just one example of such a structure, and you're perfectly free to build your own to match your army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"The YMDC strike team then proceeds to do everything they can to tell OP how his idea to create interesting fortifications that fit the theme of his army is illegal, against the spirit of the game and just generally wrong.

"
Please retract that, as that is NOT what has happened. Your misrepresentation of the position is frustrating - you clearly havent ACTUALLY read the points raised

The OP asked if it was MFA, when they have expressly styated they are Modelling NOT FOR LOOKS but to GAIN AN ADVANTAGE

The obvious answer is the one that you seem to have a problem with - that it is, indeed, MFA. The OP stated as much in their post, so I really dont understand your ragequit post, or others for that matter

Orkimedes - then you cannot buy an ADL, but have to bring along terrain and hope you get to place it. You also dont get a gun, as only an ADL gets a gun.

In you're opinion its MFA, not everyone. MFA is subjective at best and rushing in with a citation required for the permissive rule set on a modeling question about something as subjective as MFA is not a misrepresentation. The fact is I HAVE cited the only rules that even discuss modeling in the rules and the end result is modeling is not apart of the rules. The rules are made for the models, not the other way around. Like I said, this isn't a matter of rules or citations, it's an opinion on what would be an acceptable model/terrain piece.

Does anyone else get the impression this thread should be in the modeling section?

Edit: Nevermind.. I'll just try and change YMDC by taking a different path. Turning it into the forum it should be.

So far we've had roughly three opinions on the OP's question:
1. You are changing the model to get an advantage, therefore it's MFA and forbidden!
2. The ADL was clearly intended to let models shoot over it, therefore it's not MFA as you are clearly fixing an "error" in the model.
3. You are changing the model to get an advantage, so it should be counted as MFA. But we don't mind and would allow it.

So to summarize these answers.
Can I change the ADL so grots can look/shoot over it?
-No.
-Yes.
-No, but I would allow it.

PS. I am going with answer three.

clively wrote:
@rigeld2: what defines stock models?

More to the point, according to you I can't field 5 kneeling scouts or 5 prone snipers. All of which are GW models currently purchasable from their site.

How in the world is your position justified?

No, I really didn't say that - please don't put words in my mouth.
If you're doing it because the models look cool, that's great. I have absolutely zero issues with that.

If you suddenly use any bump in terrain to get cover, hide from LoS behind something a normal model couldn't, etc. your intent becomes obvious - you're not using them because they look cool. You're using them because they provide an in game advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

Not necessarily. Refusing to count them as different models also keeps the game a heck of a lot easier to play.

If you have an issue with the models your opponent is using, don't play them. Don't mess about pretending that models are something that they aren't.

Harder to do in a tournament. But I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

Bausk - no, it isnt an opinion, it is a factual statement based on the OPs wording. You have at least read the OP, yes?

They stated 1) they were changing the model because 2) they want to gain an advantage of 3) models being able to shoot over it

They are not modelling to make it look cool, the intent is, factually, MFA. That is unarguable, by those who have at least read the thread

What IS arguable is: what do you do about it, if anything.

You have not provided rules allowing you to convert, so you have no permission to do so.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Yes, absolutely, changing a model to gain an advantage is literally modeling for advantage.
If you use the "short" Genestealer to make an entire army and refuse to count them as normal height for shooting, etc. you're using a specific model for advantage - not for "Rule of Cool".

1-Why would he have to count them as normal for shooting purposes if they are out of LOS?

Because a normal Genestealer would not be out of LoS.

2-What about those Pathfinders with Rail Rifles or the IG snipers that are all crouched or prone? Do they have to be assumed as standing all the time? To me, that would be one confusing game.

One model every once in a while wouldn't make it confusing. An entire unit/army? It would get annoying but its still trivial to remember. And as long as its not abused I wouldn't care.

3-Does it just have to be about advantage? Couldn't he be modelling all his Genies kneeling/Prone/Whatever because he is making an army themed around sneaky-genies infiltrating an imperial installation? Therefore "Rule of Cool" applies

No, it doesn't have to be about advantage. Read the post you quoted. It's about attitude.

I think everyone is getting so caught up in that GW made a model, that is themed for a handful of imperial armies, so therefore it is now the law. We would not be having this huge argument if Games-Workshop never made an ADS model for the Imperium, because nobody has a problem with scratch-built mycetic spores, flash gitz, looted wagons, etc. And I can think of some EVIL ways to MFA those models with a good enough cover story that allows it to follow the "rulings of cool".

Correct, the fact that there's a model means that any scratch builds/conversions need to try and match the dimensions.

rigeld2 wrote:
Easy - all of the examples you mentioned aren't always acceptable.

The Hive Tyrant example - I'd ask that he play it like it was a current model size, and so couldn't get cover from gaunts.
Your Firewarrior example - I'd ask that you play the kneeling ones as if they were standing.
Etcetera.

I do not think you would have to ask him to not use it., MCs cannot get cover from infantry anyways right?

It helps to know the rules when participating in a rules forum. That hasn't been true for at least 5th and 6th edition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have not provided rules allowing you to convert, so you have no permission to do so.

Stop saying this. There are no rules allowing to assemble the models in the first place. It's a moot point.

StricklandPropane wrote:
This is, and will be my only post on Dakka.

I've lurked off and on for five years and every time a new codex comes out I hop on over to YMDC too see what sort of issues are cropping up so that I and my group may have a little perspective on issues we've been having.

Often I find helpful information, thought provoking rules analysis, or something in between.

But then there are threads like this.

OP here, I feel you man. I kind of feel sick reading this thread to be honest.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have not provided rules allowing you to convert, so you have no permission to do so.

Stop saying this. There are no rules allowing to assemble the models in the first place. It's a moot point.

The whole 'conversions aren't legal' argument never does end well. While technically correct, it doesn't go anywhere useful. Although it's not helped by purple reading more into the thread than people are actually saying. Nobody has claimed that conversions are against the spirit of the game, just that their legality is questionable.

The thing is, as I mentioned earlier, that people simply assume that the rules are written with the'official' models in mind. So altering the model alters how it performs... Which of course leads to perceived balance issues.

How big an issue that actually is depends on individual opinion.

It would be nice if people could accept that opinions will vary on this without making assumptions about the sort of player someone is for feeling differently about this to yourself...

Of course it's modelling for advantage. That said, in a casual game I couldn't care less, indeed if you've gone to the trouble of constructing a whole ork defence line I'd love to play you. In a tournament, ask the TO beforehand.

clively wrote:
@nkelsch:
So, you are agreeing that there is not a RAW rule declaring that a target unit always receives a cover save due to the firer model looking through the slits?
Even using geometry, you would have to agree that there are lines of sight and distances involved that would allow a target model to be 100% in view while the firer is looking through that slit. Basic geometry as you say. If you disagree, please cite.

Basic geometry means there are almost no models who can look through the slit without having an obstructed view to the point that it would give cover.

You should also agree that there are existing models from GW that are in a kneeling and even prone positions. (I've given references). Another one is a genestealer model from SpaceHulk It was a purchasable item, is a Citadel miniature ( description here) and is certainly shorter than the normal ones. Ergo, completely allowable under any rules interpretation while you state that changing another genestealer to look like it is "MFA"..

Those kneeling models are too short, and would see UP at an angle, having an obstructed view of anything on the ground.

You should also agree there is zero rule in the little rule book governing how a model is assembled, or even that it is. All we have is a statement to put the model on the base it comes with. If you disagree, please cite pg. Which means that we only have a few sources to go by, none of which are RAW. The model instructions, if it has them the vast majority don't, and the Modeling section in the full BRB and codexes showing how numerous models are put together. All of which have been described by a majority of people as "not rules".

Wrong... You have zero rule saying you can convert models or use proxies or counts as. Everything else requires opponents permission.

Next up, there is zero statement in the little rule book covering the words "modeling for advantage" or any such nonsense. Again, please cite any disagreement. Whereas we have considerable support for modeling in the modeling section of the BRB. Yes, those are not "rules" but it's the closest we'll ever come as they are in the official full rule book itself. Incidentally, the entire concept of there only being one way to assemble a model is a small step away from stating there is only one way for any particular model to be painted; which I hope no one here would advocate.

Wrong... You have zero rule saying you can convert models or use proxies or counts as. Everything else requires opponents permission.

What are we left with?

We know numerous tournaments have the concept of MFA, which is not RAW, and tournament rules or HIWPI have no bearing here. From this alone the OP's question should simply not be directed to this forum but rather to the play group/tournament (s)he wishes to attend.

Wrong... You have zero rule saying you can convert models or use proxies or counts as. Everything else requires opponents permission.

Interestingly, in the main rules we do have a section covering how to treat custom built terrain.. Which tells us size, capacity and so forth. For all intents and purposes the OP could simply create "terrain" that meets these requirements, pay for an ADL, drop the custom "terrain", (per rules) where he wants it and deploy the ADL as a back "wall" (ie: out of the way). In this situation, RAW is met while your HIWPI is completely side tracked.

ADL is not custom built terrain by the rules. ADL doesn't allow you to 'make anything you want' and deploy it for 50 points.

RAW satisfied as well as can be, we can look at RAI.

We know that the hobby / modeling section located in the BRB show conversions and custom built items that are simply not available for purchase. That alone is enough to divine intent. I don't care if the little book doesn't have those sections; they are present to those of us who were willing to pay for the "full experience" so to speak.

With regards to "providing a page that allows you to make a custom ADL or grot" the retort is simply for you to provide a page in the RULES section that shows how these models are supposed to be assembled. Getting to the "permissive" statement, you can't. So we have to go further, which means the modeling section, which means we see custom miniatures on a lot of pages. Going even further with intent we have GW repeatedly stating it's about the hobby and show casing conversions both in game and in their modeling sections of the white dwarf. For all intents and purposes this "hobby" is about modeling first, gaming second: per GW.

Page number please?

HIWPI should be obvious.

So your HYWPI allows gravel genestealers and crouching wraithlords... And for me to win the game on a 2D6 on a 2+, and for me to smash your minis with a hammer. Because nothing says I can't.

I think the general consensus is that:

Yes, shorter ADL is MFA.

Most people won't mind, and would happily play against it as is.

Some people would not play against it unless it was treated as a regular-sized ADL. Also it's not likely to be allowed at tournaments.

Yes?

Pretty much that

The massive overreaction by some posters when they are told that it is INDEED "MFA", such as the OP feeling sick, is a bit worrisome.

I dont know why people *expect* to be able to create a model purely to gain an unpaid for advantage and that noone will have a problem with it. It is surely common courtesy to not *expect* your opponent to be ok with you changing the rules, and to at least ask how they want to handle it?

For example I have quite scenic dreadnought bases, where the dreadnought is stomping all ov er the place. This makes the dreadnought high enough that it can "see" over a rhino and thus shoot while getting a reasonable cover save in return. I dont *expect* to be able to play it that way, so I always make it clear that, unless they dont mind, I will play it as a stock model so I havent gained an undue advantage (admittedly, one that was more critical in 5th, but the point is still valid in 6th)

So why should this be any different?

The OP wants to take a model that does not behave in-game as they want it to (grots cant see over / through it) and then change the model so it DOES do what they want it to (grots can see over) - it isnt "I have made a cool orky DL and now models can see over that shouldnt be able to, however I will play it as "stock"", it is "I went out of my way to give myself an advantage by altering an existing model, and for no other reason"

One is spirit of the game. One isnt. Guess which is which?

Oh, and Crimson - I know you think it is moot, yet it really isnt. You are told the game is played with Citadel Miniatures. An unassembled collection of parts is NOT a citadel miniature. Bam, there is your permission to assemble them (as you can only comply with the rule by assembling them)

Now over to you - find a rule allowing you to use converted citadel miniatures. Page and graph will suffice

p.174 Aegis Line
Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defense lines)

p. 104 Defense Lines
Defense Lines follow the same rules as barricades and walls.

p. 104 Barricades and walls
Barricades and walls are hastily assembled obstacles or the remains of once proud structures.

Doesn't that say you can ruins and parts? You could buy a Quad Gun for the above as it is an add on.

I think it would be allowed in tournaments, You just may run into some people who would cry foul so ask your TO in advance I think would be the answer.

Both these walls were allowed in tournaments and Nids can't technically even use a Aegis Line so it looks like the answer will vary to whichever side your TO leans. I bet rule of cool goes a Loonnnggggggg way.

http://www.fritz40k.com/2012/10/xeno-aegis-defense-line-options.html

Nothing would stop you from having a genestealer army of all those short stealers from space hulk. I see no rule about MFA in the rule book. White Dwarf features plenty of custom bastions and defense lines and White Dwarf is official 40k.

So I think we can take away from this:

Ask your TO.
Ask your opponent.

There may not even be an issue.

You could just put some type of hill terrain behind the aegis so the model could see over:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hill-scenery-terrain-for-28mm-wargame-like-40k-dust-At-43-building-ruin-/251214615567?pt=Games_US&hash=item3a7d8ed40f

But I like the race specific aegis for Orcs, Eldar, Necrons, and whoever else they are a lot more interesting.




EDIT add : Read the bottom post of that above cited defense line pic blog --- interesting.


Anyway with my Throne of skulls tournament next week I broached the subject on the Warhammer World Facebook page and got this definitive response [you heard it here first]

"Hey Dave- I have spoken to Simon and Jervis from Games Development (note - this isn't something we normally do, but given the pressing time limit, I went and did it!) and the answer is this - "Only emplaced weapons (such as those found on a Bastion or Fortress of Redemption) have the option to be fired either manually or automatically. Weapons attached to an Aegis defence line are gun emplacements, which cannot be fired automatically. The Tyranids FAQ document states that Tyranids cannot fire weapons manually, therefore as much as they are free to use Aegis defence lines, they will not benefit from any attached gun emplacements. We are, however, aware that this is a problem and will be reviewing the situation when we begin writing the next batch of FAQs in a few weeks."

So there may be an upcoming reprieve for the quad gun."

Nids can absolutely use an ADL.
They just can't fire the gun attached to it. Tournaments are free to change whatever rules they see fit.

Oh, and Crimson - I know you think it is moot, yet it really isnt. You are told the game is played with Citadel Miniatures. An unassembled collection of parts is NOT a citadel miniature. Bam, there is your permission to assemble them (as you can only comply with the rule by assembling them)

Citation please Nos? Where does it say you can clip the pieces off the sprue?

If your going to say conversions of all kinds are illegal, then show me where the rules for assembling models are.

You lost this debate months ago when you claimed a "power weapon" was whatever weapon came with the model, and a "power sword" could not be converted to be a "power axe" even when the wargear states it as a "power weapon"...

Where does it tell you to pick a dice up in order to roll it?

The rules tell you to use citadel miniatures, they dont say "change said mini however you like".

In fact the only allowance to do so is scenic bases, where it reminds you to ask your opponent if this is ok

So, again - in order to play with citadel miniatures you have to assemble them, same as to roll a dice you generally have to pick it up. Permission acquired (in order to not break the rule)

So, barbobot - any chance you can find permission to convert? I've given mine. Page and para will suffice. Oh, and drop the snark, makes your posts quite unpleasant.

You have given zero proof.

I your going to claim there are specific rules on how models can be assembled, then cite the page number of those rules.

The simple fact that GW sells green stuff shows you are allowed to convert models. This does not mean you get to MFA. This has been explicitly stated in previous editions.

I don't have many CSM autocannons, so I converted my abundance of heavy bolters into autocannons. All the parts were citadel mini's. Now show me a rule for asseming models that proves I'm breaking a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Oh, and Crimson - I know you think it is moot, yet it really isnt. You are told the game is played with Citadel Miniatures. An unassembled collection of parts is NOT a citadel miniature. Bam, there is your permission to assemble them (as you can only comply with the rule by assembling them)

Now over to you - find a rule allowing you to use converted citadel miniatures. Page and graph will suffice

So how do we know how these models are supposed to be assembled then? Perhaps the Hobby section has some clues...

 Crimson wrote:
So how do we know how these models are supposed to be assembled then? Perhaps the Hobby section has some clues...

Or... the instructions that come with the models.
You know. Things everyone that plays the game has access to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - no, it isnt an opinion, it is a factual statement based on the OPs wording. You have at least read the OP, yes?

They stated 1) they were changing the model because 2) they want to gain an advantage of 3) models being able to shoot over it

They are not modelling to make it look cool, the intent is, factually, MFA. That is unarguable, by those who have at least read the thread

What IS arguable is: what do you do about it, if anything.

You have not provided rules allowing you to convert, so you have no permission to do so.

Well yes it IS an opinion as MFA and modeling is not covered in the rules. Only that Models are used. And 1) The OP is not converting a model but is modeling some Citadel Scenery. Its terrain, not a model. 2) The OP wants to make it usable for their army. 3) Again, wanting to make is usable.

So if I model a space marine standing up as normal then randomly add plastic shavings and sprue off cuts to it I'm MFA? Interesting. What the OP is trying to do is this fantastic thing called 'Modeling', its the primary aspect of this 'Hobby'. The rules are made based on the models rather than the models being based on the rules. (which in case you missed it, I have already stated numerous times that the rules do not cover modeling). That, is unarguable and solidly factual.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have not provided rules allowing you to convert, so you have no permission to do so.

Stop saying this. There are no rules allowing to assemble the models in the first place. It's a moot point.

The whole 'conversions aren't legal' argument never does end well. While technically correct, it doesn't go anywhere useful. Although it's not helped by purple reading more into the thread than people are actually saying. Nobody has claimed that conversions are against the spirit of the game, just that their legality is questionable.

The thing is, as I mentioned earlier, that people simply assume that the rules are written with the'official' models in mind. So altering the model alters how it performs... Which of course leads to perceived balance issues.

How big an issue that actually is depends on individual opinion.

It would be nice if people could accept that opinions will vary on this without making assumptions about the sort of player someone is for feeling differently about this to yourself...

Its as "Technically" correct as its "technically" incorrect. Modeling is not covered in the rules. The rules only assume you are using Citadel Models, again not require (and yes there IS a difference). How each model is assembled, embellished, painted etc has no standing in the rules. MFA or not is also not covered in the rules. So I'm afraid asking for citations of permissive rules for modeling is a moot point.

Oh, I'm sorry. did I miss the part where GW the rules assume you're playing with Citadel Models only because the BRB is one big catalog with rules written in around the products? Not saying that a bad idea, hell it makes good business sense to show off your products in your game system. That said this is the only reason the book assumes you are playing exclusivly with Citadel and GW products. You could play 40k with paper cut outs or rocks and the rules would apply just as well.


And since there are no rules to discuss, I will simply say to the OP; make your model/terrain the way you want to. You don't need a bunch of rules debaters to tell you how to make your miniatures.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So how do we know how these models are supposed to be assembled then? Perhaps the Hobby section has some clues...

Or... the instructions that come with the models.
You know. Things everyone that plays the game has access to.

Are assembly instructions in the package part of the rules? And are they just diagrams or do they have words to accompany and define the assembly method? What about magnetized options? That isn't in the assembly instructions so they must be illegal as well. Just playin devil's advocate...

I think GW must laugh their heads off at all of us sometimes... I certainly laugh at my own ridiuclousness sometimes...

rigeld2 wrote:

Or... the instructions that come with the models.
You know. Things everyone that plays the game has access to.

Those are not in the 'rules' section of BRB, so by your own logic they are irrelevant, just like the hobby section.

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So how do we know how these models are supposed to be assembled then? Perhaps the Hobby section has some clues...

Or... the instructions that come with the models.
You know. Things everyone that plays the game has access to.

Are assembly instructions in the package part of the rules? And are they just diagrams or do they have words to accompany and define the assembly method? What about magnetized options? That isn't in the assembly instructions so they must be illegal as well. Just playin devil's advocate...

Magnetizing would be converting. And yes, they say where to glue and what steps.

I think GW must laugh their heads off at all of us sometimes... I certainly laugh at my own ridiuclousness sometimes...

GW should be laughing at themselves for how poorly they write rules.

 BarBoBot wrote:
You have given zero proof.

I your going to claim there are specific rules on how models can be assembled, then cite the page number of those rules.

The simple fact that GW sells green stuff shows you are allowed to convert models. This does not mean you get to MFA. This has been explicitly stated in previous editions.

I don't have many CSM autocannons, so I converted my abundance of heavy bolters into autocannons. All the parts were citadel mini's. Now show me a rule for asseming models that proves I'm breaking a rule.

Apparently you didnt bother to read what was posted. Or even bother to try to refute the argument presented.

I never claimed there were specific rules on how models can be assembled. Perhaps you should try actually reading others posts, instead of simply responding with a strawman argument?

lol. @ selling greenstuff meaning you are allowed to convert models. Page and graph please, or are you still asswerting you dont actually need rules to allow you to do something in this game of permissive rules?

Your strawman arguments are not only fallacious, but fairly hilariously bad.