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.

Christopher300 wrote:
Because I imagine grots can stand on their tip toes, also the models are crouched so they could stand up. Trivial arguments to an already trivial discussion, in my opinion. Also their are those little slots in the ADL which I am sure that they could look through.

They can't. The slots are too high. Grots eye level is really short.

The difference between a. Grot and every other model is there is such thing as a standing imperial guard and tau.

You now are channeling the my thing "spirit of the game" to gain an advantage... Maybe I think "in the spirit of the game" no one should attempt to have grots see over an ADL because in a vacuum they would never be able to, so in the spirit of the game, even if I had a grot or two on a cinematic base, I would never even attempt to shoot over an ADL with them.

Funny how "spirit of the game" means "I can cheat and call you TFG and if you don't let me I will cry about the spirit of the game."

Why should you be allowed to see over a ADL with grots, a model explicitly designed to be super small for a variety of reasons. Why can't you just do the "peeking grot" technique to fire your sentry gun opposed to requiring people to pretend your grots can tippy toe for personal advantage?

The easiest way to take care of this is use the grot from the Spear Chukka kit. He is the tallest Grot in the model range and he can see over an ADL to fire the quad gun. Perfectly legal since he is an unmodified GW produced mini used behind an unmodified ADL firing an unmodified Quad Gun or Icarus LC.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
The easiest way to take care of this is use the grot from the Spear Chukka kit. He is the tallest Grot in the model range and he can see over an ADL to fire the quad gun. Perfectly legal since he is an unmodified GW produced mini used behind an unmodified ADL firing an unmodified Quad Gun or Icarus LC.

When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.

Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.

If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?

That's what I said. Look at my Tzeentch lord on disc. I modeled it to look cool and experiment with modeling. To me, the intent was that without even thinking about line of sight. My point is that a WAAC player could accuse me of doing it just to make him taller. THIS is where that one person of out a million in my 'never happen" scenario will rear his head. That accusation against someone whose model is even the slightest bit onverted and not straight out of a box bland because it gives them even the slightest bit of an advantage (regardless of any disadvantages the one in a million player exploited during the same game) will leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth afterwards.
The conversion doesn't have to be intended to have been done for an advantage for someone to make the accusation.
This is why I address the extremes so that we are not blindsided by them.
Again, I don't care if your grots are taller than marines and can see over the wall, I'l acceptit as modeled. just don't have a cow if I then tell you that I can see them and shoot at the unit and we are fine.

On a side note.(please not the extreme never happen one in a million case here but it does seem to mirror some of the ideas putout here so far) The ADL is obviously imperial. Why would an ork army have one to begin with. They might use it on a battlefield if it was already there (set up as part of the normal terrain) but they would not have brought it with them to deploy it. As the citadel one is not ork just using it would be modeling for advantage because it is not an ork model. Now from what I am seeing here, an ork player making an adl out of ork barricades(I'm assuming grots can see over these) would also be considered modeling for advantage because it would allow the shorter models to see over it and be cool orky workmanshit but still be considered modeling for advantage because it does not perfectly match the imperial adl dimensions and is not officially an ADL because the package they were bought in said "ork barricades". Would you not assume that a grot building an orky adl (you know orks would rather build guns and faster buggies than fool with a weedy wall to hide behind) that they would build it to a height they could see over or at least put holes in it for them to see/shoot through?
Likewise elder. I saw some beautiful elder adls posted her. Would they not be allowed because they were not official?Even though I know they are made with the rule of cool in mind but as they don't perfectly match the "oficial' imperial one old, that never happen person could claim despite all obvious facts showing them otherwise that it was for some sort of advantage.

Note, That I am not saying I would agree with that person, Only pointing out that it is possible. This is why I always assume it is don't from the elder wall, grots on helmets, crouching wraithknights, whatever are done just to look cooler. Even if I suspect otherwise, I keep it to myself and just play the game because having fun and playing the game is more important to me than winning at all costs. it is also why I model for coolness (I think it would only be smart for a spotter to stand where he can actually do his job) or for money in terms of I cant afford the official model and never for an advantage. If an opponent sees something in my army as I am setting up that he fels is mfa, they can tell me then and I will be more than happy to proxy in something they are more comfortable with.

If it was done to be "cool" then you should have no objection to playing it as if it was a stock model or replacing it with a stock model if asked. When you do creative modeling, you should expect none of the advantages and gladly accept the disadvantages. That is your choice to use converted cinematic models and to not do so for advantage.

that is your opinion and it is mine and most of the others here as well.
However, as I mentioned, there will always be that one in a million "never happen" person who willnot see itthat way or make the MFA accusation just to win a game at all costs.

I am a suspicious person and have horrible luck(Murphy's law follows me like that was my real name lol).
That is why in any example both here and in other threads, I give the absolute worst case never happen scenario to demonstrate the super extreme that COULD happen. it doesn't mean I agree with t or that I am saying you agree with it either. just that is is a possibility that should be taken into account. as I said, if I face that person, I'm more than willing to trade out my converted for cool models for something they are comfortable with to keep the peace. I bring spare models with me wheni go to game and like I said, I don't care how yours are modeled.

This thread symbolises all that is wrong with 40K.

 Palindrome wrote:
This thread symbolises all that is wrong with 40K.

Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?

nkelsch wrote:


When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.

Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.

If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?

The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.

I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.

If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
This thread symbolises all that is wrong with 40K.

Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?

It's a testament to why TLOS is a really terrible idea (vs having an "official" model size regardless of pose, scenic bases, etc), if nothing else.

 Elemental wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
This thread symbolises all that is wrong with 40K.

Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?

It's a testament to why TLOS is a really terrible idea (vs having an "official" model size regardless of pose, scenic bases, etc), if nothing else.

Yes the ruleset has deficiencies. and lots of abstractions.

it could be cleaned up, it needs to be cleaned up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?

Its very existence, 4 pages arguing about something that would be obvious in any other game.

 Palindrome wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Mind explaining what you are specifically referring to?

Its very existence, 4 pages arguing about something that would be obvious in any other game.

It is "obvious" in this game system as well. The argument was not about if the Grot can see over the ADL, since it can not see over it. It is a discussion on MFA, which is not something the rules allow.

If something does not have Line of Sight, then it can not shoot. This is a really simple issue.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.

Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.

If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?

The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.

I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.

If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.

So now you are going to resort to boldface lying, plausible deniability and bullying people who may not know enough about identifying models for an in-game advantage... Bravo... And anyone who calls you on being a liar or faking your "I don't know where this model originated from so it must be legal" names, that completes the scenario perfectly.


You want to use fantasy goblins as 40k grots? Fine, just don't claim any advantages from using models which don't match the size of the stock models. Your excuses are insulting and pathetic to claim you can just use a fantasy crew as a legal model because it says "grot" on it. You are being purposefully obtuse as you know which models are 40k Gretchen, and the approximate size of them. Using one on his tippy togs from a totally different game and model line is beyond the pale of sportsmanship and respecting your opponent.

And there are legal crew. So if you want to use other models to "counts as" then you need models of approximate size and shape, which tippy toes goblins are not, especially when combining your proxies with ADLs.

 DeathReaper wrote:

If something does not have Line of Sight, then it can not shoot. This is a really simple issue.

But thats my point, its a linear obstacle which in reality would have been adapted by the grots so that they could actually use it for its intended purpose, although apparently if you model it like this its 'modelling for advantage'. Most rulesets allow units adjacent to a linear obstacle to shoot through it without penalty which is easy and makes sense, obviously not 40k though.

40k is a horribly clunky ruleset as can be easily seen by the innumerable multipage threads in this very subforum.

this is where we come back to the issue. What is the difference between modeling for advantage or modeling because it looks cool? Would you be willing to let one person use a grot that they converted years ago for coolness facter (a grot stomping on a marine helmet because it killed a space marine captain in close combat) and let it fire its lil grot blaster or whatever lil peashooter it is carrying over the wall but not someone who is using a tller 2nd edition gretchin? The end result is the same, it can see over the wall. There will always be that one in a million person who will CLAIM it is done for advantage whether or not it actually was.
again, this is why I take the all or nothing extreme approach and assume all conversions are done for coolness value and let them use it because I am not there to argue, I am there to play a game and have fun. Even if they are MFA, I just don't care, let them do their thing and let someone else fight with them about it. it doesn't mean enough to me to do it.

Plain - there are no scare quotes; it is, by definition, MFA

2nd edition plastic grots cannot see over the ADL or through the slots. They are not tall enough. Remember, models see for their eyes, so being 1" tall doesn't equate to being able to see over a 1" tall wall.

You can use your converted grots, just don't expect to be able to shoot over an ADL with them. If you attempt to use a cinematic base, a proxy grot or custom ADL which results in you being able to gain an advantage, you have two choices:

1. Realize it is an undeserved advantage, forgo the advantage and play as if your models are not able to see over or through the ADL for grots.

2. Begin slinging insults and making excuses until the opponent is berated into allowing your advantage or quits.

It is simple enough to say "I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages."

It really is simple. That is the difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship.

Nice touch... One in a million. Considering this thread has half a dozen people disagreeing, you are claiming there are 6million 40k players and all the people who would see an issue post in this thread? Every attack technique to lash out at people who would question or disallow your cheating is being used here. Maybe if you scream loud enough to blame the person calling you out, you will get away with it?

Palindrome wrote:But thats my point, its a linear obstacle which in reality would have been adapted by the grots so that they could actually use it for its intended purpose,...

That's assuming that they had time to do so before the battle, rather than that they just happened to come across an old Imperial fortification and decided to use it because it was there.


There are all sorts of things that would happen 'in reality' that are not a part of the 40K game. 'In reality' when the guy with the heavy weapon gets shot, another squad member would pick it up rather than just running off and leaving it there. 'In reality' when a 10-tonne lump of metal drops from orbit onto a unit, it would squish the unit rather than backing up and landing somewhere else. 'In reality' an unscrupulous commander could order a unit to fire on a friendly unit's position in the hope of eliminating nearby enemy troops.

None of these things are actually represented in the rules, though, because the game isn't intended to be a simulation of reality. It's a board game, and it includes various abstractions that don't make a great deal of sense in 'real world' terms but which are just there to keep the game simple and playable.

One of those is that LOS revolves around the physical properties of the actual models on the table.


Whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of personal opinion (frankly, I find myself less of a fan of using TLOS with every edition of this game that I play)... but it is how this game works.

EVIL INC wrote:this is where we come back to the issue. What is the difference between modeling for advantage or modeling because it looks cool?

The latter is where you model something a certain way because it looks cool, while the former is where you model something a certain way because it will give you some sort of (actual or perceived) advantage over a model not modelled that way.

Would you be willing to let one person use a grot that they converted years ago for coolness facter (a grot stomping on a marine helmet because it killed a space marine captain in close combat) and let it fire its lil grot blaster or whatever lil peashooter it is carrying over the wall but not someone who is using a tller 2nd edition gretchin?

Which taller 2nd edition grot are you talking about? It has already been pointed out that 2nd ed gretchin are all still too short to see over the wall.

I was only using random examples. I have not gottn ut the scientific grade measuring tool that measures down to the closest atom of plastic blah blah blah. As I said, I simply do not CARE enough. my point is the people like the one who posted directly before you Insaniak who throws out that I am name calling and attacking you because I point out possibilities. or the ones like the guy I reported who came in telling you to ignore me just because he thought I was stupid.

I know what I modeled for coolness value and you may as well. In the heat of a tournament where a single blaster shot makes the difference in who wins or loses the game where the winner gets first place, will you continue to understand it was modeled for coolness or say it was MFA despite what you know in your heart? I like to think you would stick with your heart but you know there are those who would not.

This sort of one in a million situation is why I suggest the all or nothing deal where those situations are ironed out before the game even starts. As nkelsch said before he accused me of attacking him in some imagined way, there is nothing wrong with saying ""I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages." . To be honest, were he to do that, as a good sport, I would keep my same stance and tell him, "nah, play it like I is if you want". As I said, I'm not playing to win at all costs. I'm there to have fun and part of the fun is BOTH players enjoying themselves.

I don't want to be accused of MFA when I know perfectly well I did not. I'm not worried enough about winning to do that. if I lose, I lose not a big deal. But I DO like to convert for coolness. Even small conversions and kitbashes can make a unique unit or models that I like. MFA does not play a part in it at all but as we have seen here, some WILL make that accusation. if you feel any of my models are MFA, fine, I wont use them while playing you and trade off for a different one. I'm certainly not going to you in return however. I'm sure your just as proud of yours as I am of mine so I will not deny you the chance to use them in a game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
. As I said, I simply do not CARE enough.

And yet you have 11 posts so far in this thread...

In the heat of a tournament where a single blaster shot makes the difference in who wins or loses the game where the winner gets first place, will you continue to understand it was modeled for coolness or say it was MFA despite what you know in your heart?

In the 'heat' of a tournament, if I think a model is going to be a problem, I would point it out before the game, when we're comparing armies. Once we start playing, the models on the table are the models on the table.

MFA does not play a part in it at all but as we have seen here, some WILL make that accusation

The 'accusations' made in this thread were specifically addressing models being altered to see over an ADL, or an ADL being altered to allow models that otherwise could not see over to do so.

Where a player specifically says that they are modelling for an advantage, it's not particularly out of line to accuse them of modelling for advantage...

I care about the game and the hobby along with the people who play it. you don't play for this many decades and not. lol Not to mention that when my mind focuses on something or a topic it is hard to get I off of it and I have millions of possibilities and situations (however unlikely0 hammering my mind and senses on that topic often confusing me to where I forget how many times I have posted or if I am repeating myselfWhat I don't care about is winning in a way that will cause hard feelings with another player. That was my fault, as being autistic, I find that many of my posts come across wrong and garbled and misunderstood. my apologies in that., nothing to say beyond that I am sorry about it and hpe you have patience with me.

the otherthings you mentoned seems like we are pretty much onhe same page. It usually takes me a while to get my full meaning out.

nkelsch wrote:If it was done to be "cool" then you should have no objection to playing it as if it was a stock model or replacing it with a stock model if asked. When you do creative modeling, you should expect none of the advantages and gladly accept the disadvantages. That is your choice to use converted cinematic models and to not do so for advantage.

nkelsch wrote: you have two choices:

1. Realize it is an undeserved advantage, forgo the advantage and play as if your models are not able to see over or through the ADL for grots.

2. Begin slinging insults and making excuses until the opponent is berated into allowing your advantage or quits.

It is simple enough to say "I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages."

EVIL INC wrote:I have not gottn ut the scientific grade measuring tool that measures down to the closest atom of plastic blah blah blah.

What? Nobody was saying anything about atoms. It has been previously covered in the thread a few times that 2E Grots cannot see over the wall. This doesn't require you to measure anything.

EVIL INC wrote:
As I said, I simply do not CARE enough. my point is the people like the one who posted directly before you Insaniak who throws out that I am name calling and attacking you because I point out possibilities. or the ones like the guy I reported who came in telling you to ignore me just because he thought I was stupid.

I did not say you were stupid. I said that you have a method of arguing that will prove impervious to any attempts at rational discussion.

EVIL INC wrote: As nkelsch said before he accused me of attacking him in some imagined way

Nkelsch did not accuse you of attacking. Either you are looking at the post directed towards Boss GreenNutz, or misunderstanding the one directed at you.

EVIL INC wrote:There is nothing wrong with saying ""I understand my custom model may have a real advantage in the following scenarios, to not screw you or unintentionally harm the game, I will not be exploiting those advantages." . To be honest, were he to do that, as a good sport, I would keep my same stance and tell him, "nah, play it like I is if you want".

Then you are agreeing with us.

Insaniak wrote:if I think a model is going to be a problem, I would point it out before the game, when we're comparing armies.

Exactly this.

EVIL INC wrote:I don't want to be accused of MFA when I know perfectly well I did not.

Nobody does, and that is perfectly understandable. But if you are not MFA, then forfeiting any advantages given by the model's altered state is perfectly agreeable.

Example Situation of a Non-MFA Player wrote:
Player 1: That converted Dreadnought is cool, but it looks a bit too tall.
Player 2: Yeah, I scratchbuilt the legs.
Player 1: I'm not comfortable with it having the ability to gain LOS over things it wouldn't otherwise.
Player 2: Oh of course, we'll count it as the same height as a regular Dreadnought. I put an Aquila on its sarcophagus that is level with normal Dreadnought LOS for that exact reason.

Example Situation of an MFA Player wrote:
Player 1: That converted Dreadnought is cool, but why are its guns on top?
Player 2: No reason.
Player 1: I'm not comfortable with it having the ability to shoot over things it couldn't otherwise.
Player 2: But that's a core element of my strategy!

EDIT:

EVIL INC wrote:autistic

I apologise, I didn't realise. Knowing this, I will attempt to interpret your posts more openly.

nkelsch wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


When you have rules for fantasy spear chuckers in 40k, then knock yourself out. Using a non40k model as a "counts as" to gain and advantage is rude, MFA and not in the "spirit of the rules" and is gamesmanship.

Being a grot is not the same as being a grot crew for big guns or Gretchen. If you follow that model, then any human model from any model line can be any other human model with no change expected and you then gain all the in game advantages associated with it.

If I can use an unmodified grot of any line forge world makes, then I can use my 54mm forge world squig hopper grot model. Then I can see everything no problem... GW model and in modified, doesn't matter if it is the same size of the stock model right?

The tab on the model i have says "grot", it doesn't say "Spear Chukka" crew. As far as I know it came in a blister i bought once labeled Gretchin. Please prove me wrong by showing every blster ever sold by GW showing the grots that come in them. If you claim using unmodified GW minis in the role their mounting tab says, in this case a Grot, is rude then maybe you need to look at your reasons for playing the game.

I have around 75 grots, painted ones anyway, never bothered to count the unpainted guys, and for the life of me can not find a single one that has Big Gunnz crew on the tab. Oddly enough I do have some labeled oiler, go figure that one, so going by your line of reasoning it is impossible to even field a Big Gunnz battery since there are no crew produced or add crew since looking at the GW site this morning there are no blisters labelled, extra crew.

If you have a model labelled or sold as a grot you are correct, you may legally use it in a game. I'd have no problem as I'm not that anally retentive that I pull out micrometers to measure things with, Legally used models used in accordance with the rules as they are written just don't seem to bother me.

So now you are going to resort to boldface lying, plausible deniability and bullying people who may not know enough about identifying models for an in-game advantage... Bravo... And anyone who calls you on being a liar or faking your "I don't know where this model originated from so it must be legal" names, that completes the scenario perfectly.


You want to use fantasy goblins as 40k grots? Fine, just don't claim any advantages from using models which don't match the size of the stock models. Your excuses are insulting and pathetic to claim you can just use a fantasy crew as a legal model because it says "grot" on it. You are being purposefully obtuse as you know which models are 40k Gretchen, and the approximate size of them. Using one on his tippy togs from a totally different game and model line is beyond the pale of sportsmanship and respecting your opponent.

And there are legal crew. So if you want to use other models to "counts as" then you need models of approximate size and shape, which tippy toes goblins are not, especially when combining your proxies with ADLs.

WOW someone sure got her panties all wadded up on that one. Too funny. Again I ask you prove that GW never, ever sold a blister labeled Gretchin that didn't contain that model. So you are again atating it is illegal to use a model that looks like a grot, has a GW tab that says it is a Grot as a .......wait for it..........grot. What is next? Are you going to bitch about someone playing Imperial Guard and using Morsian HWTs and Cadian Lasgunners? I'll not sink to your level of petty name calling, but you are more than welcome to reply when you grow up and gain some maturity. Until then feel free to continue eating dinner at the little kids table..

How about we all dial down the hostility a little, folks? Toy soldiers...

Aww come on now. Isn't more fun to watch someone pop a gasket as they resort to throwing a fit and begin petty name calling when asked why it is illegal to play the game by the rules with models designed for that use?

Let's avoid ad hominem comments, and keep things friendly and respectful, okay folks? -Mannahnin

Frozen Ocean's last post sums everything up nicely for me. I'd say this one has been put to bed.

DoW

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Aww come on now. Isn't more fun to watch someone pop a gasket as they resort to throwing a fit and begin petty name calling when asked why it is illegal to play the game by the rules with models designed for that use?

Your boldface lies to claim that your fantasy spear chukka was never sold as a 40k gretchin shows a level of gamesmanship and unethical ness to gain an advantage. You are parodying yourself by claiming the very plausible deniability which makes you TFG. How is using a fantasy model in 40k "a model designed for that use." That statement is a lie and you know it. Calling you on lying doesn't constitute a "fit".

When you are cheating and lying to gain an advantage in a game, and think you are proud of how clever your "prove it never existed" argument is, what do you expect? Fantasy spear chukker grot on tippy toes is not and was never a 40k model. I own literally every 40k grot released in oiler, rigger, gorkamorka, crew and Gretchen form. I can identify where every grot came from. I know what is stock and what is a "stand in". To tell me otherwise makes you a liar and a cheater by definition, all to gain an advantage in game.

So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.

Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.

And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
So again around we go. I look at the tab on the model it says what? "Gretchin". I look at the Dex entry and guess what it says to use? spoiler alert; the word begins with a g and ends with an n.

Now since you have evidently missed the question more than once, please show me anywhere in any rulebook, hell I'll even accept a previous edition rulebook, that using an unmodified model as it is labeled in a role that it is called for in the Codex is cheating. If I were to sink to your level of maturity, but since I won't , I'd say that the way I see it is you are the cheater and TFG for not allowing it.

And just out of curosity here would you mind pointing to a post where I've said I have actually purchased the tippytoe grot in a blister? I have asked you several times to show me proof that said tippytoe grot was never sold in a blister but you can not do so as you'd rather resort to petty name calling and childish antics.

I purchased some Space Marine models from Forgeworld. My SM codex says that the models are "space marines." So I can use them in a game to represent models in my units, right? They are all clearly labeled "space marine," after all.

By the way, each is 6" tall...
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Modelling-Supplies/IMPERIAL-SPACE-MARINE.html

We all know which models are sold to be used for each unit. It is not difficult.