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.

This is related to my artwork poll, but I felt like they were different enough to warrant their own polls.

Are the assembly instructions that come with your models binding? Are you required by the rules to assemble them in that fashion? Or are they suggestions instead? A guide to help you see how the pieces fit together?

Yes and no. The rules are written with the assumption and expectation that the models will be assembled (mostly) as intended, although with some latitude expected for conversions.

GW doesn't bother making an explicit rule against (e.g.) putting your landraider or predator sponsons on top of the tank for improved LOS, because they expect their players not to be tools and try it, and they expect opponents to be able to handle it appropriately. Either by simply refusing to play against the model, or allowing it if they genuinely don't mind and/or they want to humor the little kid who made the conversion.

I don't really see that as being the assembly instructions being rules at that point, so much as it is common sense.

I was more thinking of the threads about the Quad Gun where people claim that the assembly instructions for an ADL show the Comms Relay being attached to the wall, which is therefore precedent that upgrades for the ADL must be physically connected to it. (I'm not interested in this particular rules debate, just whether or not the foundation for using the assembly instructions as the basis of a rules argument is sound. Please don't argue the ADL question itself in this thread.)

I've also seen it come up in questions about the Land Raider sponsons, where the sponsons and the doors are able to fit in two different positions, clearly, while the instructions only show a single method of assembly. Some folks claim that this is a binding rules precedent forcing you to assembly your sponsons and doors in the illustrated manner, or have an illegal model.

It always seemed to me that the assembly instructions were just there as a cheat sheet if you couldn't figure out how the pieces were sculpted to fit together, with no bearing on the rules. I kind of expected that if they intended it to be a binding addition to the rules, that they would at least give us some printed instructions, rather than a bunch of wordless pictures.

Well, that's why I said yes and no. While GW games are generally written to be inclusive of conversions, I would say that model photographs and assembly instructions are illustrative and demonstrative of what GW was picturing when writing the rules, and the context in which those rules are intended to function.

So if I make a significant conversion which is outside the normal assembly of the model, and that conversion creates a notable advantage for me in the play of the game, other players (or event organizers) have some justification for reacting negatively, as I've still changed how my model functions within the game rules.

This is an inherent consequence of a model-centered ruleset.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yes and no. The rules are written with the assumption and expectation that the models will be assembled (mostly) as intended, although with some latitude expected for conversions.

This, in a nutshell.

They're not rules, but the rules expect that you have followed them.

Yes, they are rules: they tell you how GW expects a given unit to be represented.

As for conversions, RAW conversions are not permitted (since the rules never say that you're allowed to modify a model). Conversions are only allowed if both players agree to modify the rules and allow a non-standard model. Obviously most players are happy to allow "reasonable" conversions (for some definition of "reasonable"), but it is a privilege, not a right, and you are entirely justified in refusing to allow a conversion that gives its player an in-game advantage.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, they are rules: they tell you how GW expects a given unit to be represented.

As for conversions, RAW conversions are not permitted (since the rules never say that you're allowed to modify a model). Conversions are only allowed if both players agree to modify the rules and allow a non-standard model. Obviously most players are happy to allow "reasonable" conversions (for some definition of "reasonable"), but it is a privilege, not a right, and you are entirely justified in refusing to allow a conversion that gives its player an in-game advantage.

By that logic the rules do not give you permission to assemble the models. At least not in my copy of the rulebook.

 Happyjew wrote:
By that logic the rules do not give you permission to assemble the models. At least not in my copy of the rulebook.

The rules tell you to use the appropriate model. The model comes with instructions that tell you how to assemble it. There is nothing unclear about this.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, they are rules: they tell you how GW expects a given unit to be represented.

As for conversions, RAW conversions are not permitted (since the rules never say that you're allowed to modify a model). Conversions are only allowed if both players agree to modify the rules and allow a non-standard model. Obviously most players are happy to allow "reasonable" conversions (for some definition of "reasonable"), but it is a privilege, not a right, and you are entirely justified in refusing to allow a conversion that gives its player an in-game advantage.

I can't agree with this. I would say that conversions are implicitly allowed by GW as they do not provide models for all that is in the codices, or do not provide the instrctions and/or pieces needed for setups that are entirely legal within the game (as they are clearly in the army list).

Show me how to build a flying twin twin-linked devourer hive tyrant from a hive Tyrant box, following the instructions, and we'll talk.

And yes, as this is one of the best models a Tyranid army can field, you just asserted that using a flying HT with twin-linked devourers is MFA, because using that version of the HT is definitely an in-game advantage compared to the other versions of the HT.

And what is that? A Doom of Malan'Tai in a Spore Pod? Neither of which even have models? And the combination of which is clearly too good?

tl;dr: GW doesn't provide all models and options that exist in the codices. Quite clearly, if a model exists in the codex, you can play it, even if no model or version of model exists. Hence conversions are allowed.

I think there's an obvious and clear boundary between making or modifying a model to represent a unit for which no model is available, and converting an existing model to alter the way it functions in the game.

Baktru wrote:
tl;dr: GW doesn't provide all models and options that exist in the codices. Quite clearly, if a model exists in the codex, you can play it, even if no model or version of model exists. Hence conversions are allowed.

RAW you can't use those units/rules until GW releases an official model. However, there is generally a consensus about what a "standard" representation of the unit should be, and as long as your conversion is a "reasonable" one you probably won't have any problems getting people to allow it. On the other hand if your model isn't a reasonable one (wrong size, doesn't look at all like the art, etc) there is no obligation to allow it just because GW hasn't given you an official one.

Peregrine: Fair enough.

Mind you, the first thing I was thinking of was Hive Tyrants with twin-linked devourers. If you follow the assembly instructions in the HT box exactly, you can't make that either.

On the other hand, the BRB contains a whole chapter on converting, starting on page 322... So that would be an indication for me that conversions are in fact explicitly allowed...

And hence, the Assembly instructions cannot be rules.

B.

Baktru wrote:

On the other hand, the BRB contains a whole chapter on converting, starting on page 322... So that would be an indication for me that conversions are in fact explicitly allowed...

And hence, the Assembly instructions cannot be rules.

B.

Yea, see there is the issue.

My Rulebook does not have a Page 322...

Yeah I want to know how I field my Inquisitor w/ 2 Needle pistols? What Model is there for that?



I did have an opponent object to my Mycetic Spore Pod. It was a painted Plasma Hatcher(the one a lot of nid players use.). We asked the store owner and all the 40k players if my pod was disallowed and they just laughed at him and didn't even answer him. At least people can be reasonable but how big or small could I make my pod really? If I were to use a lump of clay could I make it Bastion size to block LoS?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Baktru wrote:

On the other hand, the BRB contains a whole chapter on converting, starting on page 322... So that would be an indication for me that conversions are in fact explicitly allowed...

And hence, the Assembly instructions cannot be rules.

B.

Yea, see there is the issue.

My Rulebook does not have a Page 322...

Sadly, your rulebook is then incomplete in some areas. They're areas which don't often need to be discussed, but converting models is one.

Oh White Dwarf is offical and I have seen all kinds of conversions in there.

I guess since this isn't an official model some would disallow this piece of art work? Seems a shame to call it a model.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/89934677@N08/8169687219/in/faves-49708175@N03/

 Mannahnin wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Baktru wrote:

On the other hand, the BRB contains a whole chapter on converting, starting on page 322... So that would be an indication for me that conversions are in fact explicitly allowed...

And hence, the Assembly instructions cannot be rules.

B.

Yea, see there is the issue.

My Rulebook does not have a Page 322...

Sadly, your rulebook is then incomplete in some areas. They're areas which don't often need to be discussed, but converting models is one.

My rulebook, the one that came with the Dark Vengeance set, contains all the rules that the big rule book has. At least I thought it contained all the rules the big book has. Is this not the case?

Well, it contains basically all the rules you'll need for regular play. If you need/want more info to do with modeling, for one example, then yes, the hardcover has a good bit more info.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it contains basically all the rules you'll need for regular play. If you need/want more info to do with modeling, for one example, then yes, the hardcover has a good bit more info.

I had a look at my roomates big BRB, and while it has more information than the small rulebook I have, the rules section of both of the books are identical.

Therefore the rules section does not deal with modeling at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it contains basically all the rules you'll need for regular play. If you need/want more info to do with modeling, for one example, then yes, the hardcover has a good bit more info.

I had a look at my roomates big BRB, and while it has more information than the small rulebook I have, the rules section of both of the books are identical.

Therefore the rules section does not deal with modeling at all.

Well I guess we're not allowed to assemble the models at all then.

Caboose

IamCaboose wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it contains basically all the rules you'll need for regular play. If you need/want more info to do with modeling, for one example, then yes, the hardcover has a good bit more info.

I had a look at my roomates big BRB, and while it has more information than the small rulebook I have, the rules section of both of the books are identical.

Therefore the rules section does not deal with modeling at all.

Well I guess we're not allowed to assemble the models at all then.

Caboose

That is not really true. The Rules section does mention modeling.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." P. 2

Vague as it is, it mentions using Citadel miniatures, anything other than a citadel miniature, and that would include any models with non-citadel parts, are not legal where the RAW is concerned.

A bunch of parts on the sprue is not a "Citadel miniature" it can be, but untill it is assembled it is just parts for a "Citadel miniature"

DR: My Hive Tyrant is obviously not created from Citadel parts from a single model, as well.. The HT box does not contain devourers.

So would this model, made of all Citadel parts, but not following the assembly instructions nor using parts only of that specific model, be legal for play RAW? And how about HYWPI?

 DeathReaper wrote:

IamCaboose wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it contains basically all the rules you'll need for regular play. If you need/want more info to do with modeling, for one example, then yes, the hardcover has a good bit more info.

I had a look at my roomates big BRB, and while it has more information than the small rulebook I have, the rules section of both of the books are identical.

Therefore the rules section does not deal with modeling at all.

Well I guess we're not allowed to assemble the models at all then.

Caboose

That is not really true. The Rules section does mention modeling.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 ate referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." P. 2

Vague as it is, it mentions using Citadel miniatures, anything other than a citadel miniature, and that would include any models with non-citadel parts, are not legal where the RAW is concerned.

A bunch of parts on the sprue is not a "Citadel miniature" it can be, but untill it is assembled it is just parts for a "Citadel miniature"

To me it's a rather great leap of logic to call the collection of separate parts of a miniature not the miniature though. The implication of assembly is not there in that vague pg.2 line. The only thing we know for sure is that the miniatures are to be mounted on the base.

 Shandara wrote:
To me it's a rather great leap of logic to call the collection of separate parts of a miniature not the miniature though.
The implication of assembly is not there in that vague pg.2 line. The only thing we know for sure is that the miniatures are to be mounted on the base.

Well we need to figure out what GW means when they say "Citadel Miniature" from the references in the book (Line of Sight and cover being the two most prominent) GW means assembled models.

Baktru wrote:
DR: My Hive Tyrant is obviously not created from Citadel parts from a single model, as well.. The HT box does not contain devourers.

So would this model, made of all Citadel parts, but not following the assembly instructions nor using parts only of that specific model, be legal for play RAW? And how about HYWPI?

"parts only of that specific model" do not enter into it, if the option is available in the codex then you can purchase the option for your model and the model will have said option.If the model is 100% citadel parts, and assembled, then you have a citadel mini as long as it matches what citadel has produced.

Is it 100% citadel parts? Is it similar to the stock hive tyrants?

If yes and yes then "HYWPI" would be totally kosher.

Clearly RAW is fairly vague assembly issues, but, as I said, "Citadel Miniatures" means assembled models.

After building and painting my first flying hive tyrant, with a lot of modeling for the wings and the twin linked devourers, and then playing a few games with it I went back and bought another kit. This one I did with the standard legs as opposed to the leaping legs and heavily modeled the wings to make them more furled. Why? Because the basic kit is stupidly large and high for no reason. Oh it looks good, it just sucks to try to move around the battlefield and place in terrain. Is that modeling for advantage? I would have to say no because demons aren't modeled in such a horrible manner and they are legal.

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would have to say no because demons aren't modeled in such a horrible manner and they are legal.

Daemon Princes aren't T6, which means Rail Cannons can blow them away Turn 1. Some Greater Daemons are T6 (and 7!), but Fateweaver isn't. And none of them have Eternal.
So for the Hive Tyrant's increased survivability and reduced cost, you get an easier-to-see model.

Ever hear of kit-bashing? GW has used that term plenty in order to achieve the proper model that has the wargear the player says it has. if the instructions of how to model the miniatures were treated more like a rule than an idea or general concept, then how am I to model my chapter master with a thunder hammer? The kit for a SM commander does not contain one yet you have the option to pay for one and just because the kit doesnt have one means I cant use it? Why even make it an option if i cant do it? That would not make any sense. Now ive heard of modeling for advantage but how do you convert for advantage?

So then GWs own design team has clearly broken the rules because this has clearly not followed the assembly instructions that come with the model.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would have to say no because demons aren't modeled in such a horrible manner and they are legal.

Daemon Princes aren't T6, which means Rail Cannons can blow them away Turn 1. Some Greater Daemons are T6 (and 7!), but Fateweaver isn't. And none of them have Eternal.
So for the Hive Tyrant's increased survivability and reduced cost, you get an easier-to-see model.

Where do Hive Tyrants get Eternal Warrior? And don't most Demon Princes have an invulnerable save? Makes them pretty hard to kill.

Biomancy, Iron Arm.
A 5+ invulnerable isnt great when facing instant death on a 200+ point character