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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I never claimed there were specific rules on how models can be assembled.

Great. So, I can assemble them anyway I like, i.e. convert.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I never claimed there were specific rules on how models can be assembled.

Great. So, I can assemble them anyway I like, i.e. convert.

Are you assembling a Citadel Miniature, as presented?

If yes you are not converting
If no you are converting when you have no permission to do so

So, got that page and graph allowing you to convert? Anything? No? Then you have yet again conceded your position.

You apparently don know what a straw man is...

How have I misrepresented your stance?

You claim to know rules that disallow conversions. I asked for the rules and you can provide none.

You claimed previously that death cult assassins could not take 2 different power weapons because the official model only has swords. You were wrong then, and your still wrong now.

Show me RAW that says death cult assassins can not choose the power weapons they wield.

@rigeld: the vast majority of models do not have instructions. Nor even come with a picture of the final model. We could get even more ridiculous and say that due to all the finecast issues it may be difficult to tell exactly where that arm socket really is on many models.

I for one will continue using my GW produced prone snipers to get an advantage. Just like I'll use my kneeling apothecary ( legs that came in the command box ) to help hide it. Again, by your definition that's MFA; even though I'm using the parts as supplied.

This entire thread is ridiculous. Just like the whole concept of MFA.

So Crimson, make sure you get each SM arm exactly at the same angle that is depicted in the assembly diagram (not too high or too low). And make sure you don't turn the head a different direction to what is shown either... Oh and head swaps are RIGHT OUT... No all-beaky squads for you! (sarcasm off).

Edit for a touch more sarcasm..

clively wrote:
@rigeld: the vast majority of models do not have instructions. Nor even come with a picture of the final model.

"Vast majority"? Literally every single one I've purchased in the past two years does. Between the boxes and GW.com they all have both.

I for one will continue using my GW produced prone snipers to get an advantage. Just like I'll use my kneeling apothecary ( legs that came in the command box ) to help hide it. Again, by your definition that's MFA; even though I'm using the parts as supplied.

Yes, that's literally true. You're using specific models because they give you an advantage over the same thing modeled differently. If you had the choice between a standing and kneeling Apothecary and always selected the kneeling one because you could hide it easier, how is that not modeling for an advantage?

A single model I wouldn't care about, but that doesn't change the fact that you're modeling for an advantage and are pretending you're not.

Guess you haven't bought any character packs. Ahriman, typhus, chaos lord, Lysander, haemonculus, archon, etc. heck I bought a monolith 2 years ago: no instructions. Yes, there are far more clam packs and white box sets without anything resembling an instruction for assembly.

Either way, using the model as supplied cannot possibly be considered modeling for advantage. Unless you want to claim that GW's design team is engaged in this practice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Are you assembling a Citadel Miniature, as presented?

As presented where? In the hobby section perhaps? And why any pictures of models, assembled in any way, have any bearing? After all, as you have said, they're not rules.

clively wrote:
Guess you haven't bought any character packs. Ahriman, typhus, chaos lord, Lysander, haemonculus, archin, etc. heck I bought a monolith 2 years ago: no instructions. Yes, there are far more clam packs and white box sets without anything resembling an instruction for assembly.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1710108a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1710112a
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1600046a
Yeah, no pictures at all as to what they're supposed to look like.
And no, since I play Nids I don't buy too many character packs. I do look at pictures for my SMs and make models that look similar. But I don't claim advantages from differences.

Either way, using the model as supplied cannot possibly be considered modeling for advantage. Unless you want to claim that GW's design team is engaged in this practice.

It absolutely can, you're refusal to accept the truth notwithstanding.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yeah, no pictures at all as to what they're supposed to look like.

So why are those pictures relevant, but pictures in the Hobby section of BRB aren't?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yeah, no pictures at all as to what they're supposed to look like.

So why are those pictures relevant, but pictures in the Hobby section of BRB aren't?

Because everyone has access to those pictures.
Not everyone has access to the Hobby section of a book that is not the only place to find rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Because everyone has access to those pictures.
Not everyone has access to the Hobby section of a book that is not the only place to find rules.

Ookay... So when GW still had hobby articles on their website, you were allowed to convert, but now than they don't you are not allowed? Can I use my old models that were converted when it was still allowed?

(And do you realise what you're saying is utterly bonkers?)

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Because everyone has access to those pictures.
Not everyone has access to the Hobby section of a book that is not the only place to find rules.

Ookay... So when GW still had hobby articles on their website, you were allowed to convert, but now than they don't you are not allowed? Can I use my old models that were converted when it was still allowed?

(And do you realise what you're saying is utterly bonkers?)

You do realize I'm not saying that conversions in and of themselves are bad (or not allowed) but that conversions for the purposes of gaining an advantage the stock model doesn't have are bad, right?

Convert all you want. I don't care. I'll make no stance as to what the RAW on that is.
But do it for the main purpose of gaining an advantage and then pretending that it's okay? Come on man, at least be honest with yourself.

rigeld2 wrote:

You do realize I'm not saying that conversions in and of themselves are bad (or not allowed) but that conversions for the purposes of gaining an advantage the stock model doesn't have are bad, right?

Convert all you want. I don't care. I'll make no stance as to what the RAW on that is.
But do it for the main purpose of gaining an advantage and then pretending that it's okay? Come on man, at least be honest with yourself.

And then we are back at discussion what constitutes as meaningful advantage. Considering how much the models can vary depending on the assembly or when they were manufactured, what OP is doing seems a difference slight enough that I wouldn't care.

Going from "not being able to shoot" to "being able to shoot" seems pretty damn meaningful to me.

Has anyone actually stood a grot up to the firing/vision slits in the ADL to see if they can see/shoot through them? I don't remember most grots being so short that they wouldn't be able to see through those slits... So maybe all this gnashing of teeth is moot? I'll check when I get home (if for nothing more than my own curiosity).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And IIRC there is a grot model that has one grot standing on the shoulders of another. That model would definitely be able to see over the ADL...

Beast wrote:
Has anyone actually stood a grot up to the firing/vision slits in the ADL to see if they can see/shoot through them?

Unfortunatly the vision slits are actually higher than the lower sections of the wall.

Then I guess my idea would be moot... But I think I'll still check it all out later to see which (if any) grots are tall enough to see over the short section of the ADL... So far I know of only the one grot model I mentioned earlier... But maybe there are others? But I suppose the MFA purists would have a problem using those with Big Gunz unless they actually came with the Big Gunz models... :-/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not that I would use Big Gunz ( and I don't use ADLs anyway...)

Wow, just wow....ok so I have not read all of this but changing the dimensions of the ADL to function differently is obviously modeling for advantage. Something which is covered in most tournaments. IF you are not intending to bring your ADL to a tournament then just ask your opponent if they are ok with your intent for using it. IF you are going to a tourament most have a rule stating that models that are converted accept all disadvantages and gain no advantages of differences from stock models. So in the case the OP describes his opponents could see his models but he still could not draw LOS if the normal ADL would not allow it.

Which works for anyone who just wants something that looks cool.

Otherwise why don't I build a Skyshield landing pad that is 2' x 2' so I can put my whole army on it....because obviously if I could have a forcefield projector I would build it large enough to cover everyone....

I love conversions, and have many but they should be encouraged because they look cool not because they give an advantage to your army.

BarBoBot wrote:You apparently don know what a straw man is...

Actually I do. You have made up an argument, pretending it is the argument I have made, and then attacked that argument. The fact you dont even read your own posts well enough to realise that is quite telling.

BarBoBot wrote:How have I misrepresented your stance?

I'll get to that, as apparently it didnt sink in the first time round....

BarBoBot wrote:You claim to know rules that disallow conversions. I asked for the rules and you can provide none.

ding ding ding, we have a misrepresentation winner! Not only have you committed a fairly easy to spot fallacy (A -> B does not imply !A -> !B, or the missing middle fallacy) but your strawman argument continues

I have not stated there are rules disallowing conversions, I have stated there are no rules allowing conversions.
I have added the bold and the underlines to hopefully, finally, hammer home the point I am making, as apparently stating the exact same thing over and over to you simply hasnt worked and you still have gotten the wrong end of the wrong stick.

So, given I have provided MY rules, how about you provide your permission. Or will you claim that the game isnt permissive? Or will you yet again commit some fallacies, make spurious claims and misrepresent? It would be wonderful if you could avoid doing so, in at least one of your posts.

BarBoBot wrote:You claimed previously that death cult assassins could not take 2 different power weapons because the official model only has swords. You were wrong then, and your still wrong now.

Nope, I was wrong about whether GW would change the rules. A bit like everyone playing Out of Sight prior to the FAQ was "wrong". Apparently I should be a mind reader. DCA can do so because they have FAQd permission in - you knopw, this thing that is the basis of all the games we play?

BarBoBot wrote:Show me RAW that says death cult assassins can not choose the power weapons they wield.

Show me how this is at all relevant, or still a contended argument, and you might have a point. Oh wait, you cant, and you still dont.have a point.

actually there are rules allowing for conversions,

every codex with rules for models that do not exist (biker warbosses, wasdakka, inquisitor valeria, ect)

and every codex with units in it with wargear options only available via conversions (ie a box of GK's comes with one hammer, but OBS we can convert more GKS to have hammers legally, several weapons dont have models with those weapons, acolytes in power armour dont exist, and so on)

is permission to convert, or use stand ins (some lawyer types will say that biker ork warbosses are "illegal" as is using wasdakka or valeria, after all, you cannot play the rules for those units without conversions/stand ins. these lawyer types would be wrong OFC)

what constitues a reasonable conversion or stand in, is in fact, up to you and your opponent,

so the rules are very clear for the OP's scenario,

IE ask opponent for permission, most people wont care, some would, ask TO's prior to attending tournies. If people say no, then its a no go

id never say no to it

This has a lot less to do with permissive ruleset, and much more to do with your refusal to accept that the hobby section located in the official rulebook covers conversions. Without the hobby section you have no rules for cutting your models from the sprue let alone assembling them.

A rational person knows the difference between MFA and conversions. Building an ADL that allows models that could not shoot from the official model to be able to now shoot is MFA. Converting your power maul to an axe is not if your unit options allow either to be chosen.

It was common sense from the beggining, and the FAQ about power weapons was there to silence the obtuse.

This thread has brought something to my mind.

If there are some models that work well with the ADL, standing IG heavy weapon teams for instance, is there anything in the rules preventing you from using nothing but that model? Would it be MFA to model ALL of your heavy weapon teams identical to the official GW sculpt that can see over the ADL?

For that matter, is there an official GW model from any time in history of a Gretchen standing on his tippy toes? If so could the OP spam nothing but this model and take full advantage of a regular height ADL?

How do the various people posting in this thread deal with true LOS and a model converted to be artistically beautiful but seriously horrible when using true LOS. For example a HQ unit standing on a cinematic base that makes him taller than the official model. Do you use true LOS? Do you fudge it so that he is the high of the official model? Replace him temporarily with a shorter one to determine LOS?

If anyone sees this as derailing from the OP's topic inform me and this message will be deleted.

easysauce wrote:
actually there are rules allowing for conversions,

every codex with rules for models that do not exist (biker warbosses, wasdakka, inquisitor valeria, ect)

and every codex with units in it with wargear options only available via conversions (ie a box of GK's comes with one hammer, but OBS we can convert more GKS to have hammers legally, several weapons dont have models with those weapons, acolytes in power armour dont exist, and so on)

is permission to convert, or use stand ins (some lawyer types will say that biker ork warbosses are "illegal" as is using wasdakka or valeria, after all, you cannot play the rules for those units without conversions/stand ins. these lawyer types would be wrong OFC)

Er... how is the non-existence of something permission to convert it?



Not saying that it's not expected that you will... but I'm not seeing the logic to your claim here.

BarBoBot wrote:This has a lot less to do with permissive ruleset, and much more to do with your refusal to accept that the hobby section located in the official rulebook covers conversions.

Which "official" rulebook are you talking about? The smaller rulebook, which contains ALL "THE RULES" as they are denoted in the larger hobby book, does not contain this section. Meaning it isnt rules. Or are you going to be obtuse again?

I noted how you havent actually answered the points, just tried to handwave your fallacies away, yet again. A very dishonest way to argue.

BarBoBot wrote:Without the hobby section you have no rules for cutting your models from the sprue let alone assembling them.

Please show the rules for how you roll a dice. Or, you know, you could read the rules which say to use a citadel miniature and, a bit like picking up a dice is a required step to rolling it, o is assembling the model from its parts so you actually have a citadel mini at the end of it.

BarBoBot wrote:A rational person knows the difference between MFA and conversions.

Which, if you had bothered to actually read any of mine or other posts, you would have seen has been consistently given. As I am a rational person. Or were you yet again passive-aggressively insulting me? You should really try to avoid that.

BarBoBot wrote:Building an ADL that allows models that could not shoot from the official model to be able to now shoot is MFA.

Which I said, and pointed out how the rule of cool doesnt apply when youare doing it to be cool, but just for advantage. You really didnt bother to read this thread, just jumped straight in.....

BarBoBot wrote:Converting your power maul to an axe is not if your unit options allow either to be chosen.

Not since the FAQ, no. Which gave you permission. Which you AGAIN cannot show the rules allowing this, despite requests,meaning I accept your concession, as you ave failed to follow the tenets of this forum (or rule 1)

BarBoBot wrote:It was common sense from the beginning, and the FAQ about power weapons was there to silence the obtuse.

Ah, so your strawman arguments, which I presume you now agree are such as you have not attempted to refute it, were to do what?

From wrote:
How do the various people posting in this thread deal with true LOS and a model converted to be artistically beautiful but seriously horrible when using true LOS. For example a HQ unit standing on a cinematic base that makes him taller than the official model. Do you use true LOS? Do you fudge it so that he is the high of the official model? Replace him temporarily with a shorter one to determine LOS?

Depends on how "scenic". A tiny bump? Don't care. A huge bump? I'll be annoyed. A huge bump and he's using it to shoot over things? Ask to use a normal model/fudge it.

From wrote:
This thread has brought something to my mind.

If there are some models that work well with the ADL, standing IG heavy weapon teams for instance, is there anything in the rules preventing you from using nothing but that model? Would it be MFA to model ALL of your heavy weapon teams identical to the official GW sculpt that can see over the ADL?

This was the point I made earlier.

Using models in different poses isn't in itself an issue. Where people take exception to it is where you make specific modelling choices solely for the purposes of giving yourself an in-game advantage that you wouldn't have using the regular models.

Nobody cares if you model some of your Gretchen in funky poses because it looks cool. People will care if you model your Gretchen all standing on rocks for the sole purpose of letting them see over things that they otherwise couldn't.

From wrote:
This thread has brought something to my mind.

If there are some models that work well with the ADL, standing IG heavy weapon teams for instance, is there anything in the rules preventing you from using nothing but that model? Would it be MFA to model ALL of your heavy weapon teams identical to the official GW sculpt that can see over the ADL?

For that matter, is there an official GW model from any time in history of a Gretchen standing on his tippy toes? If so could the OP spam nothing but this model and take full advantage of a regular height ADL?

How do the various people posting in this thread deal with true LOS and a model converted to be artistically beautiful but seriously horrible when using true LOS. For example a HQ unit standing on a cinematic base that makes him taller than the official model. Do you use true LOS? Do you fudge it so that he is the high of the official model? Replace him temporarily with a shorter one to determine LOS?

If anyone sees this as derailing from the OP's topic inform me and this message will be deleted.

That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

BarBoBot wrote:You claim to know rules that disallow conversions. I asked for the rules and you can provide none.

ding ding ding, we have a misrepresentation winner! Not only have you committed a fairly easy to spot fallacy (A -> B does not imply !A -> !B, or the missing middle fallacy) but your strawman argument continues

I have not stated there are rules disallowing conversions, I have stated there are no rules allowing conversions.
I have added the bold and the underlines to hopefully, finally, hammer home the point I am making, as apparently stating the exact same thing over and over to you simply hasnt worked and you still have gotten the wrong end of the wrong stick.

So, given I have provided MY rules, how about you provide your permission. Or will you claim that the game isnt permissive?

*I snipped most of the unhelpful sniping garbage out.

BarBoBot doesn't need to quote a rule allowing conversions. The reasons are simple: the very few times models are even mentioned RAW covers trying to use a like base, using scenic bases and the word "Citadel". If you truly want to argue RAW then you need to start with providing permission to even assemble models within the confines of what you've claimed are the only rules.

Once that is done then we can talk about whether you even need permission to convert something. However, as you so often state, you can't.

There is no real RAW support here and never was. Continuing to argue from that perspective isn't worthwhile. All we have is a HYWPI scenario. We know that *some* tournaments allow custom ADLs; we know some don't. We even know some people here wouldn't even play a game with a current standard GW mini built according to pictures on the GW website because of "intent", fine, whatever. But don't try to claim RAW support on how a model is supposed to look if you are going to discount the modeling section of the bigger book.

 Timmy149 wrote:
That raises a good point-If Guard HWTs cant see, then how come they are treated any differently? People allow that all the time-I dont see why modelling vision slits larger so that models could see through, when most armies basic troops cannot see over the wall (ie termagants, grots, kneeling guradsmen, kneeling marines etc)

Some stock HWT's can see over the stock ADL, and some stock HWT's can not.

No stock grots can see over the stock ADL.

Modeling extra vision slits, just so a model that has no way of normally seeing over the top of the ADL can see through it, when it would normally have no Line of Sight at all Is the very definition of MFA.