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.

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

It was not released as an Ork dreadnought. It was included in the starter set as a stand-in.

Why does "included... as a stand-in" make it any different since it can be used as it according to GW because that is what its purpose is suppose to be?

And I totally agree. If someone has an official Dredd model, they're welcome to use it.

i'm glad we are at an agreement here.

If they have a cardboard cutout of a dredd, because they just want to try out a dredd in their army before they actually go an buy one, and they bring that up before the game... then in most cases they're likely to be welcome to use it.

Beyond that, though... It's not a model. It's not a particularly good stand-in for a model. Put it in your 'Curios from Dayes of Yore' box and move on.

Is it's purpose suppose to represent an Ork Dread? Is it officially suppose to be used as an Ork Dread and is made by GW? If no to either or both of those questions could you answer why GW included it in the box if it wasn't suppose to be played as an ork dread?

Oberron wrote:
Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Can you quote any rules that say that my shoe isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Why does "included... as a stand-in" make it any different since it can be used as it according to GW because that is what its purpose is suppose to be?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Is it's purpose suppose to represent an Ork Dread?

...for a specific scenario in a starter set.

Is it officially suppose to be used as an Ork Dread and is made by GW?

It is officially supposed to be used as an Ork dread in that specific scenario from the starter set.

That doesn't make it a miniature. It makes it a stand-in that GW included to let people try out a dreadnought in that specific scenario in the starter set.

The giveaway that it is not a miniature is the fact that it is not, in fact, a miniature. It is instead a piece of cardboard with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

No side will convince the other of their respective view. It's the internet, after all.

And in the end, it's up to the players whether they would let someone play with a cutout or not. No TO worth a damn will allow it, but friends might be ok with it.

nkelsch wrote:
The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

 don_mondo wrote:
So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Absolutely.
And in no way does that cardboard standout adequately represent the current unit.

I do not believe it should be needed to shell out hundreds of euros to enjoy this game. I do not particularly like painting, I simply do not have time to spend hours doing it but I also refuse to field unpainted models.

That said, I see no problem with someone fielding this, but I'd expect them to get an actual miniature eventually (I'm fine by non-GW products also).

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Absolutely.
And in no way does that cardboard standout adequately represent the current unit.

And if he had said that (doesn't represent) instead of his 'previous edition' statement, I wouldn't have called BS.

Haha. Just don't turn it sideways torward the enemy at the end of every move and you'll be fine

Naw wrote:
That said, I see no problem with someone fielding this, but I'd expect them to get an actual miniature eventually (I'm fine by non-GW products also).

I think that's the gist of it. It's fine as a fun one-off, but the fun goes sour if you start fielding it regularly to the exclusion of using an actual model.

I don't think it should be objected against, because its cardboard.

It could be objected against for not being WYSIWYG, unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon. Which orks can't get.

Sometime around 3rd orks recieved the "klingon treatment" and went from having things like lascannons, plasmacannons, and being BS3 WS3 to getting angrier and becoming WS4 BS2...and making all of their weapons out of metal bawkses welded together with bullets pressed against one end that psychically come out the other end..

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

 don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The back of the "model" has rules on it. Those rules are invalid in everything but 2nd edition.

Also it is a "Dreadnought" not a "Deff Dread". So if you want to use a 'previous edition model' as a different unit in the newer codex, you can 'counts as' a similar ruleset. Good luck finding "dreadnoughts" in the current codex.

'Counts as' takes opponents permission. Opponents won't give permission.

If you want to claim 'technicalities' you are trying to proxy a 2nd edition OOP 'model' with 7th edition rules for a totally different unit ruleset. That requires opponents permission.

Funny how being an easter-egging fool always fails in a game of social interaction and opponents consent.

So if I wanted to use my RT era Imperial Army miniatures as current AM, you're saying that's a no-go? I call bs. Rules have changed over the years, but as long as the model adequately represents the current unit, then it should be allowed.

Yeah, that is what 'Counts As' is for. If there is a reasonable application of old models to new rules, and your opponent agrees, no problem. Lots of my RT orks are lacking appropriate weapons and could exploit LOS due to size. My RT orks in Terminator/power armor might not make great Orks in Mega armor and some might feel I am using a model with no rules for an advantage. I could see why people might have legitimate complaints about my RT terminator orks being 7th edition mega nobs. Lots of ork models no longer have rules and can only exist with 'counts as/proxying'. Some do have rules and they get to use their rules.

If the old models match the current rules, weapons, profile you can use 'Counts as' to use them in a game... but to demand and force anyone to do anything in a game based on social interactions is insane.

That paper Dread has no place in games without opponent's consent, and should be banned from tourneys.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

The rules require you to trace LoS "along" the barrel of a weapon.
Please explain how to trace along the barrel of a 2 dimensional object.

No one has ever said anything about my 2nd Edition CSM models on the board. I don't think anyone should say anything about your 2nd edition cutout.

I remember playing against someone with cutout Rhinos, back in the day. The complaint used to be that it costs over $100 to create an army, back then.

rigeld2 wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

The rules require you to trace LoS "along" the barrel of a weapon.
Please explain how to trace along the barrel of a 2 dimensional object.

Now you are getting into theoretical mathmatical discussions, but you could measure from the point on the "weapon" that does exist. You could even argue that the paint has a third dimension. However, let's not get too far away from the point I was trying to make. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

Shooting is not why I brought up my point. You can make an arguement for not shooting and yours is a good one. I am making an arguement that the lack of a dimension does not prohibit its use for play in the game. If I assume, for the sake of agruement, that a 2D weapon can't shoot, why couldn't the cardboard model still be used in say hand to hand?

I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model.

An irrelevant statement, as shown throughout the thread.

But I'm done. I would refuse to play against one and that's where I'll leave it.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It does not have "weapons" it has cardboard and paint. it has a picture of a weapon, but it does not have a weapon.

Normal 3D models have phys reps of weapons, the Cardboard cut out of the Ork Dread do not have phys reps of weapons it has cardboard and paint (Or ink if you want to get technical).

and Vehicle weapons are surely required to be 3D as you trace Line of Sight for a vehicle weapon, from its mounting along the barrel...

Bottom line you will never have Line of Sight for shooting with that cardboard cutout.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It is actually not a citadel miniature, it is a cardboard cutout.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow." (Models and Units chapter, Models and Units section, 1st non-italicized graph).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
unless no one noticed it has a heavy bolter and lascannon.

No, it actually does not have any weapons, it has cardboard and paint. It doesn't actually have any weapon barrels so you can never draw line of sight with its guns that have been painted on.

It does have "weapons". They are pictured on the cardboard. They are 2 dimensional. Models are not required to be 3D and in many instances they are not.

No plastic toys have weapons. All have representations of fictional weapons. Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It does not have "weapons" it has cardboard and paint. it has a picture of a weapon, but it does not have a weapon.

Normal 3D models have phys reps of weapons, the Cardboard cut out of the Ork Dread do not have phys reps of weapons it has cardboard and paint (Or ink if you want to get technical).

and Vehicle weapons are surely required to be 3D as you trace Line of Sight for a vehicle weapon, from its mounting along the barrel...

Bottom line you will never have Line of Sight for shooting with that cardboard cutout.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
I am currently agruing that the model can be used because it is a GW model. Model defined as a representation of something. The capacity and limitations of the model's use can be debated after we determine if it can be used.

So, back to my statement: Please cite definition or a rule where this is required that they are 3 dimensional.

It is actually not a citadel miniature, it is a cardboard cutout.



"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow." (Models and Units chapter, Models and Units section, 1st non-italicized graph).

It does have "weapons". A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Oberron wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Please provide the evidence that the cardboard cutout was released as a model.

You still have the 2nd edition starter box contents handy, right, to prove that you have the authentic cardboard dreadnought?

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

 solkan wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes. I have posted it several times now: A cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it is not a model, nor is it a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout with a picture of a dreadnought on it.

Can you quote some rules to back up this statement that it isn't a miniature to be used as an Ork dread?

Please provide the evidence that the cardboard cutout was released as a model.

You still have the 2nd edition starter box contents handy, right, to prove that you have the authentic cardboard dreadnought?

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

I'm not the one with the starter box. I also did not know that it has that line. That pretty much settles it right there and then. GW says it isn't a real substitute for a Citadel Model then it isn't one. Thread done.

WOW, I can't believe this thread went on 3 pages of heated discussion.

In a friendly game I'd allow it.

If they were started being a douche, trying to model to advantage with it, I'd rebase it for them, onto a proper size base, and conduct measurements to the base.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
It does have "weapons".

Incorrect, it has pictures of two weapons it is not allowed to have.

A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

Not in the context of the BRB a picture can not be a model.

P.S. Moot not Mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

chapterhouse or other 3rd party models are strictly forbidden by the RAW.

The cardboard cutout is not a model, so it does not matter that it is from citadel.

My Stormraven box with a pic of the Stormraven on it is from citadel as well, but it is not a model either.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
It does have "weapons".

Incorrect, it has pictures of two weapons it is not allowed to have.

A picture can be a model. Think of a computer model. This model, by the definition that I provided, is of a weapon. If we can agree on a diferent definition (as you provide in your second part), then this becomes mute.

Not in the context of the BRB a picture can not be a model.

P.S. Moot not Mute.

In your second part, this is more clear. Where a citadel miniature=a model or models. That is quite specific. Key word Citadel. By RAW, any non-Citadel miniature can not be used. Are FW models Citadel? Are 3rd party models Citadel? Is the cardboard cutout from Citadel?

If we can conclude its not Citadel, then the cut-out can't be used.

Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

chapterhouse or other 3rd party models are strictly forbidden by the RAW.

The cardboard cutout is not a model, so it does not matter that it is from citadel.

My Stormraven box with a pic of the Stormraven on it is from citadel as well, but it is not a model either.

To your points in order:

1. Incorrect on the weapons issue. See 3a-c
2. The only thing that matters in this case is the definition of a model. I read page 8 again and I would like to know how this is any different than your assertion on the "definition" of special characters. This (page 8) looks like your definition of fluff.
3. I never argued that a storm raven box is a miniature. I am arguing that a dread made of cardboard, by Citadel, for the use of being played in the game is. Let's start with this:
a. Is the cardboard cut out made by GW?
b. Was it, at that time, intended for use in the game?
c. If yes to b, then I contend that they made that a miniature version of a dread at that time. They defined it as a miniature by issuing that for game play.

If it was a miniature and made by GW then, by page 8's definition, it is a model. So to amend my first statement: please provide a page number with the definition of a miniature where it must be 3D.

Edit: Because on page four and five of the rulebook for 2nd edition, the contents of the set, including the models, are listed out. And there's this phrase:

Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model

used to describe that particular piece of card stock.

So...this basically ends the entire discussion right here. Not a legal model.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Yes FW models are citadel, they are the same company.

Definitely not. They are both part of GW and can both be described as Games Workshop miniatures, but Citadel is one brand and Forge World another, distinct brand. Forge World themselves distinguish between Citadel and FW miniatures in some of their descriptions. For example:

Forge World, in their description of the Space Marine Heavy Weapons Set wrote:Space Marine Heavy Weapons Set containing four resin heavy weapons: a Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon; 4 supporting and 4 counter-balancing arms, and backpacks. These can all be used with the full range of both Citadel and Forge World Space Marine kits.

FW do not produce citadel models, they are two different departments, but they most certainly do not produce citadel miniatures.

Games Workshop Group PLC

Games Workshop has expanded into several divisions/companies producing products related to the Warhammer universe.

Games Workshop now produces the tabletop wargames, Citadel miniatures, and the Specialist Games range.

Forge World makes complementary specialist resin miniatures and conversion kits. Forge World is also responsible for the Warhammer Historical line of historical wargames rules, including Warhammer Ancient Battles, all of which were previously published by as a component of Black Library.

BL Publishing is the fiction, board game and roleplaying game publishing arm of Games Workshop. They comprise several separate imprints; The Black Library, Black Flame and Solaris Books. Warp Artefacts used to produce merchandise based on Games Workshop's intellectual property; they are now folded into BLP as BL Merchandise

.[26]

As we can see forge world =/= citadel miniatures.

Of note Citadel does produce miniatures for game systems outside of games workshop, which technically would be legal use in 40k RAW-wise


the carbord does have thickness so you can draw along the edge of the cardboard from the gun barrel to a target, its obviously physically possible...and when I touch the cardboard it phhysically exists in the third dimension with us....

blaktoof wrote:
the carbord does have thickness so you can draw along the edge of the cardboard from the gun barrel to a target, its obviously physically possible...and when I touch the cardboard it phhysically exists in the third dimension with us....

Except the edge of the cardboard is not the gun barrel...

oddly im still able to draw a line from the gun barrel to a target...seems when it was used as a model in the boxed set GW produced for it people were also able to draw line of sight from its gun barrels to targets. Not sure how they managed that...oh wait you can see the gun barrel and draw a line from where it is on the model to the target - amazing!