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.

 Melissia wrote:
You're stating that the modeling section of the BRB doesn't count, only the rules section counts. Ergo... why should other things that are not in the rules section count, either?

Because there's a difference between rules/instructions and helpful tips. Things like online FAQs or model kit titles tell you how to play the game. Things like the modeling section of one version of the rulebook provide creative tips or ideas for house rules you may wish to consider, kind of like how the rulebook also has tips on making your own special scenarios (which would obviously be house rules that you and your opponent agree to use, not part of the standard game). In support of this "not official rules" status you can consider the fact that the "rules only" versions of the rulebook omit this section entirely, along with other "not rules" content like the fluff section and pictures of painted models.

The only thing I can think of is you distinguish between the two using a silly, arbitrary method, which you've designed specifically and solely so you can attack a certain kind of player, rather than actually logically following from the rules as written.

You may wish to avoid accusing me of arguing in bad faith, since in my experience that tends to result in a forum vacation.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because there's a difference between rules/instructions and helpful tips.

GW's website doesn't offer the former, therefor it only offers the latter.

 Peregrine wrote:
You may wish to avoid accusing me of arguing in bad faith, since in my experience that tends to result in a forum vacation.

I quote:

 Peregrine wrote:
However, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that "reasonable" conversions/proxies/etc are allowed. The point is not that a bunch of units are banned because they don't have official models, it's that conversions are outside the scope of the game and therefore claiming that your dreadnought with 24" guns (to gain extra range) is "legal" is just stupid. It isn't legal RAW, and nobody is obligated to give you that special permission and accept MFA if they don't want to.

I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that this is not the right way to go about trying to interpret the rules; it's showing an inherent bias on your part.

Meh. If pointing out your own statements is offending you, however, I will bow out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So when we have Units with no miniatures; GW must be assuming we are all smart enough to proxy that model right?

Nope, that just means you can't use that unit by strict RAW. Fortunately GW has stopped making units that don't have models when the codex is released, and hopefully they'll eventually get around to making those missing models.

Fortunately we as players have provided house rules (with near unanimous agreement) that those models are acceptable because they are a reasonable conversion. But that doesn't mean that a dreadnought converted to have 24" guns must also be accepted.

No by Strict Raw you can use Citadel Miniatures to represent that unit.

Fortunately we as players have provided house rules (with near unanimous agreement) that those models Be as close to the description as possible to avoid the nonsense of a single guardsman representing a Landraider or mycetic spore because they are unreasonable. That also doesn't mean that a dreadnought converted to have 24" guns would be accepted.

 Melissia wrote:
GW's website doesn't offer the former, therefor it only offers the latter.

The GW website does offer lots of helpful tips, but it also has instructions. For example, it tells you what a Rhino model is. It doesn't say "here's a cool way to represent your Rhino but feel free to use others", it says "this is a Rhino".

Again, the alternative to this is complete absurdity where you can use a grot as a Land Raider because it's a Citadel miniature and you're never required to use the appropriate Citadel miniature.

I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that this is not the right way to go about trying to interpret the rules.

No, that's exactly what you accused me of. I quote:

The only thing I can think of is you distinguish between the two using a silly, arbitrary method, which you've designed specifically and solely so you can attack a certain kind of player, rather than actually logically following from the rules as written.

You're accusing me of inventing this interpretation specifically to attack people rather than sincerely believing that it is the correct interpretation (which I do).

I get what Peregrine is trying to say, The use of GW models implied as the rules are a supplement to the miniatures, though there are no rules that directly enforced this in the book.

The problem is with this logic it would be illegal to play 40k without painted models, since the boxes you buy state they are supplied unassembled and unpainted which would imply correct use of this product requires assembly and painting before use.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its kinda like using tea spoon to eat soup its not wrong its just not what the spoon was intended for.

I am accusing you of inventing this interpretation.

Mainly be cause you are adding restrictive adjectives with a claim that they are RAW or factual and have done so often/loudly enough that the OP had top start this thread quoting you.

Your made-up claims have started this perceived attack on you, and in the end it is your own fault for making such claims.

Wow being cival is hard on some people.

Its obvious that there is no wording in the brb that supports only the use of citadel miniatures, there is no argument there. There is also no denying that the rules are made to accompany the product GW make.

so why is the thread still open.

kranki wrote:
Its obvious that there is no wording in the brb that supports only the use of citadel miniatures, there is no argument there.

Only citadel miniature are considered Models per the BRB; I am Not arguing that.

What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

That, and the outright refusal to accept that any Citadel Miniature is a model by RAW

At no point does the brb say only citadel miniatures are considered models.

The words use are:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

kranki wrote:
This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

No, but no other object is referred to as a model, so anything that isn't a Citadel miniature is just random clutter on the table with no game relevance.

Citation is probably the wrong word maybe refferant is more apt.

Permissive ruleset; the rules only allow citadel Miniatures(that is the first section of the sentence"The Citadel miniatures used").

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

No, the word "appropriate" is not RAW, but it is the best way to express the concept that GW tells you very clearly what Citadel miniatures represent each model/unit in the rules.

kranki wrote:
At no point does the brb say only citadel miniatures are considered models.

The words use are:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

This is a citation and at no point does it mean the word models is exclusive to citadel miniatures again it just implies.

Actually - no. Since that defines "models" then to have it mean anything else you'd need a second definition.
So... Do you have another definition?

That isn't true although the phrase citadel miniatures is being refered to as "models" it does not give it exclusivity to the word. This is only implied by the author.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Your reasons for it not being complete and utter nonsense do not actually prove that it is complete and utter nonsense, in fact, all it does is prove that this interpretation is complete and utter nonsense.

It's only "nonsense" if you want conversions/counts-as/proxies to be supported by the rules. If you're content to leave them as something outside the rules that the individual players in a game agree on then it's not illogical at all. And it has the nice side benefit of telling TFG to STFU and go away when they try to bring a dreadnought with 24" guns because "GW never says I can't".

So does this mean that if GW does not have a model for a unit that is in the rulebook then you are not allowed to use it as per the rules?

kranki wrote:
That isn't true although the phrase citadel miniatures is being refered to as "models" it does not give it exclusivity to the word. This is only implied by the author.

No, it doesn't by itself grant exclusivity. GW could define other objects as models in the future. But until they do the only objects that are defined as models are Citadel miniatures.

 carlos13th wrote:
So does this mean that if GW does not have a model for a unit that is in the rulebook then you are not allowed to use it as per the rules?

RAW that's exactly what it means.

Fortunately virtually everyone agrees that you can use a reasonable conversion to represent that unit. But this is a house rule, and what counts as "reasonable" depends on the players involved. No conversion is ever approved by the rules.

You realise how ridiculous that is right? A rule book that says here are some units its impossible to play as per the rules.

 carlos13th wrote:
You realise how ridiculous that is right? A rule book that says here are some units its impossible to play as per the rules.

You're right, it is kind of bad. Fortunately GW has stopped releasing units that don't have models, so this problem only applies to a few older armies.

Plus, like I said, virtually everyone has agreed on a house rule that fixes the problem, so it's really not worth worrying about as long as you aren't trying to MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What I am arguing against is the added, restrictive, Adjective: "Appropriate" presented as RAW.

No, the word "appropriate" is not RAW, but it is the best way to express the concept that GW tells you very clearly what Citadel miniatures represent each model/unit in the rules.

Again that is not an absolute; which is what you are couching it as.

You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

If it must be built a specific way because that way is Stated in the instructions as the particular type, which again catches your claim the Empire models cannot be acolytes because once you convert them you have not followed the instructions for constructing Empire Handgunners, and therefore have a Citadel Miniature that has no Name/title that happens to fit the description/wargear of a 40k unit

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

The instructions for the model tell you how to build it, including the choice of components to represent different variants of the model.

If it must be built a specific way because that way is Stated in the instructions as the particular type, which again catches your claim the Empire models cannot be acolytes because once you convert them you have not followed the instructions for constructing Empire Handgunners, and therefore have a Citadel Miniature that has no Name/title that happens to fit the description/wargear of a 40k unit

You're assuming that any combination of pieces of Citadel miniatures is a Citadel miniature. In reality when you combine those two kits all you have is some Citadel parts glued together without assembling a Citadel miniature, just like if you glued a bunch of extra sprues together and tried to call it a tactical squad.

Fortunately in this case most people would probably consider it a reasonable conversion and allow it under the previously mentioned house rule.

Does your interpretation of the rules flow into painting models. Since models are supplied unpainted do you need to paint them to use them and can you only use GW paints.

kranki wrote:
Does your interpretation of the rules flow into painting models. Since models are supplied unpainted do you need to paint them to use them and can you only use GW paints.

I don't really care because whatever the rule is RAW everyone has a different policy on that. GW's official ruling has no relevance in a real game.

 Palindrome wrote:
I am sure that GW rules have been starting with that exact same sentence for years and it has been roundly ignored so I don't see why it should have any particular relevance now.

It gets pointed out every edition sooner or later, usually in relation to somebody trying to argue in favour of some sort of creative modelling abuse.

The discussion generally goes about as well as this one has so far.

 Melissia wrote:
A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

This sadly applies to a heck of a lot of threads in this forum

 Melissia wrote:
A summary of this thread: Taking a sentence out of context and running it to its most illogical conclusion.

The thread should have just been locked after this ^

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You are claiming Product title is RAW for Model Name; what about the Stalker/Hunter model; or the Land raider redeemer/crusader? Can I build it either way of must it be built a specific way to be either?

The instructions for the model tell you how to build it, including the choice of components to represent different variants of the model.

The instructions for the model, of course you realize, are not rules.

MFA and conversions for variety and rule of cool are all player conventions. How this is determined is not by the finished model, but about the intentions of the person who produces the model. Someone who produces a slightly smaller Riptide for the purpose of cover saves is MFA. A person who produces a slightly smaller Riptide because they had a kit bash idea and has made a epic model is doing so for fun. It's hard to distinguish the two on a internet forum.

Its really about the people you play, if you know them and their reasons why. In tournaments conversions are limited, to avoid abuse of the gaming system, especially when there is money involved, this is nothing against the people that convert, it's just the best and only way to keep WAAC MFA players from shutting down the scene.

Personally I don't like rules being brought into these things. If you don't want to play a converter or someone who MFA then you don't have to, but unless you really do know it is pure MFA I think it's wrong to label it MFA or tell people not to do it.

I believe with the vast majority of players, conversions which are close to actual model size which give a proportionate representation will revive no issues, even in many tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MFA and conversions for variety and rule of cool are all player conventions. How this is determined is not by the finished model, but about the intentions of the person who produces the model. Someone who produces a slightly smaller Riptide for the purpose of cover saves is MFA. A person who produces a slightly smaller Riptide because they had a kit bash idea and has made a epic model is doing so for fun. It's hard to distinguish the two on a internet forum.

Its really about the people you play, if you know them and their reasons why. In tournaments conversions are limited, to avoid abuse of the gaming system, especially when there is money involved, this is nothing against the people that convert, it's just the best and only way to keep WAAC MFA players from shutting down the scene.

Personally I don't like rules being brought into these things. If you don't want to play a converter or someone who MFA then you don't have to, but unless you really do know it is pure MFA I think it's wrong to label it MFA or tell people not to do it.

I believe with the vast majority of players, conversions which are close to actual model size which give a proportionate representation will recive no issues, even in most tournaments.

There are many instances on the Dakkadakka website where the YMDC sub-forum can be a valuable tool for hashing out the specifics of certain tricky rules, when despite the sometimes heated discussion, it can shed light on problematic wording and conflicting descriptions for those who read these posts.

But dang this probably isn't one of them.

Peregrine please, could you point out the exact page number where is the same statement as in the quote I pasted in this threads first post.

It is your duty to prove that there is tis kind of a ruling in the book as you made that statement.

If you say that UFOs exists it is not our job to prove that they do not exist.

Burden of proof is on your side.