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.

blaktoof wrote:
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!

From the gun barrel to a target sure, but that is not what the rules ask for.

From the mounting along the barrel is what is required, and impossible to determine with the non model that is the cardboard cut out.

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.

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

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.

Can anyone of the "pro" side counter this?

blaktoof wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.

1) that only applies to models

2) And even with the assumption that "all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º." would not help, as you still need to draw Line of Sight down the barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do.

3) Not that the cutout is a model anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In the rare cases when it matters, assume that guns can swivel vertically up to 45º, even if the barrel on the model itself cannot physically do that! Additionally, assume all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º.

Obviously the barrels on the model cannot swivel, in order to be able to assume any gun is free to move and swivel you cannot measure down the barrel to determine LOS, if you notice from this rules snippet it does not require you to measure along the barrel, because you cannot measure along the barrel if the barrel is assembled in a way that it cannot move now can we?

Therefore it is not a requirement to measure along a barrel if the weapon cannot swivel, as you cannot measure along a direction a thing cannot physically move to.

And even with the assumption that "all hull-mounted weapons can swivel horizontally up to 45º." would not help, as you still need to draw Line of Sight downthe barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do.

Obviously I am wrong and it is a model thank you blaktoof for being reasonable and showing me the error of my ways.

so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

blaktoof wrote:

Fluff statements do not equal rules?

Those are full and valid rules. Taken straight from the book the model came with.

Can you re-butt this or not?

 Sigvatr wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Fluff statements do not equal rules?

Those are full and valid rules. Taken straight from the book the model came with.

Can you re-butt this or not?

actually p4.5 are not pages that list any rules in that book...it lists the contents of the box

The rules do not begin until page 8 of that book, so you are quite wrong that those are rules.

It's GW directly stating that this is not a real model. Can't get any clearer than that.

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's GW directly stating that this is not a real model. Can't get any clearer than that.

unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They do so its not a substitute for a citadel model it does allow you to fight a game immediately using the dreadnaught rules, and you can buy metal model from citadel that is an ork dreadnaught.

However the rules do not begin until p.8 of that book, so that is not a rule. It also does not state it is not model, but rather that is it not a substitue for a citadel model which is a statement of editorial level and not a rule. This could mean that it is not a high quality model like the citadel model.

The interesting part of this which you did not bring up is that its not a citadel model. its just a model. The cardstock in the boxes and the rules were put out by GW publications which at the time was separate from citadel models, much like FW are not legal citadel models this is also not a legal citadel model for army selection purposes.

So no, its not okay to use just as FW is not okay to use being that they are not legal Citadel models, you are correct in that.

edit- just realized my witch elves which I use as dark eldar wyches are marauder witch elves so they are not legal citadel models, the sadness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

before your edit of the "new positions of the gun barrel"

it also doesn't say that anywhere in the RAW, which you obviously made up.

It's a substitute model. That's what they say. A substitute model isn't a real model by its very definition. And note that they even say no "real" substitute.

The FW is completely independant as GW explicitely states that they are to be used in standard 40k.

Can you quote where it says that the cutout isn't a substitute model?

can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Does forgeworld produce citadel miniatures? can you show that anywhere? please quotes.

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

hmm the complete sentence that says unambiguously that it is a model, which is before the rules page sadly along with the statement saying its not a substitute for a citadel model.

So yes its a model for the game.

is it as good as the citadel model? no.

I think the key word now is that the rules refer to miniatures being the physical objects, referred to in the rules as models. Model is a game term (different from the concept "scale model", but the rules presupposed that the game is played with miniatures.

As a model is inherently symbolic, the cardboard cutout could reasonable act as one. There's a long history of similar items in gaming.

A cardboard cutout is not a miniature, though. As its not a miniature, it's not really appropriate to be used in a game.

It's all academic of course. I can't see any ork player owning one of those, but not having an actual Deff Dredd mini.

blaktoof wrote:
...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.

You didn't draw LOS along the gun barrels in 2nd edition. Dreadnoughts had a 90 degree fire arc to their front.

 insaniak wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
...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.

You didn't draw LOS along the gun barrels in 2nd edition. Dreadnoughts had a 90 degree fire arc to their front.

True, but regardless if the barrels cannot swivel there is no requirement to draw LoS down them as you cannot do so. Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

blaktoof wrote:


unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They do so its not a substitute for a citadel model it does allow you to fight a game immediately using the dreadnaught rules, and you can buy metal model from citadel that is an ork dreadnaught.

However the rules do not begin until p.8 of that book, so that is not a rule. It also does not state it is not model, but rather that is it not a substitue for a citadel model which is a statement of editorial level and not a rule. This could mean that it is not a high quality model like the citadel model.

The interesting part of this which you did not bring up is that its not a citadel model. its just a model. The cardstock in the boxes and the rules were put out by GW publications which at the time was separate from citadel models, much like FW are not legal citadel models this is also not a legal citadel model for army selection purposes.

So no, its not okay to use just as FW is not okay to use being that they are not legal Citadel models, you are correct in that.

edit- just realized my witch elves which I use as dark eldar wyches are marauder witch elves so they are not legal citadel models, the sadness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so if your landraider had its gun glued in place you could literally only fire straight at head from where they are glued. amazing!

When did I say that?

before your edit of the "new positions of the gun barrel"

it also doesn't say that anywhere in the RAW, which you obviously made up.

I never said that. The Edit was to separate the downthe in this sentence:

"as you still need to draw Line of Sight downthe barrel of the assumed new position, which of course you can not do." (Me)

blaktoof wrote:


unfortunately they do not say its not a real model.

They also dont say that I cant place my models back on the table after they have been removed and use them again, but that doesn't mean I can do it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

It is not a model...

blaktoof wrote:
can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

The quote is right in the previous post. Re-read it.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Also answered above.

I could use Text-to-Speech if that would help you?

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

but you are 100% wrong, and it is a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
can you quote a section anywhere in the rules for 2nd that says its not a model? that would be past page 8. or the scenario book that comes with the box and has you use the stand up card dread model.

The quote is right in the previous post. Re-read it.

also can you quote where in the 40k rulebook it says you can use forgeworld? I see citadel..not forgeworld.

Also answered above.

I could use Text-to-Speech if that would help you?

did. you didnt.

fail.

blaktoof wrote:
True, but regardless if the barrels cannot swivel there is no requirement to draw LoS down them as you cannot do so. Obviously the barrels on this model do not swivel.

The actual rule just allows you to pivot the weapon as if it was free to move. Although it's irrelevant to walkers, since they still have a defined fire arc to their front.


The bigger issues with using the cardboard dread are simply:
a) It's armed with weapons that the Ork Deffdredd doesn't have access to
and
b) It's not a model. It's a cardboard cutout

blaktoof wrote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

So since you claim it is a model you surely can produce proof of the profile yes?

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes." (Models and Units chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

blaktoof wrote:
You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

So you can not produce a profile for it?

Then it is not a model.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

So since you claim it is a model you surely can produce proof of the profile yes?

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes." (Models and Units chapter, Characteristic Profiles section).

yep, it has a datacard from 2nd edition, when it was produced as a model.

Obviously the ork dreadnaught model no longer exists, as its now a "Deff Dread" and has a different profile, and different weapon options.

just like pulsa rokkits no longer exist, but they are models, as well as miniatures. The fact they do not have current rules does not make them, not models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are absolultey correct its not WYSIWYG which I did point out previously as well, and stated it would not be legal for play.

However it is a model, regardless of some people disliking that.

So regardless of model status the Cardboard cut out of Ork Dread from 2nd edition is not okay to use, as it has no current rules and you would not be able to shoot with it anyway.

i've stated about 3 times now in this thread that its not okay to use.

nkelsch wrote:
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.

I guess I'll just throw away these three Eldar Dreadnoughts I've got since no such thing exists, too.

blaktoof wrote:

yep, it has a datacard from 2nd edition, when it was produced as a model.

Obviously the ork dreadnaught model no longer exists, as its now a "Deff Dread" and has a different profile, and different weapon options.

just like pulsa rokkits no longer exist, but they are models, as well as miniatures. The fact they do not have current rules does not make them, not models.

So nothing current from 7th ed?

It was a model in 2nd, but it is no longer a model as it no longer has a profile.

you really are trying to say its not a model, even though it was produced as a model, because there are no current profiles for it?

theres a slew of models that no longer have rules for every faction. They are still all models. They just no longer have rules to play them.

If you like we could take the cardboard cut out, and use a pair of hobby knives produced by GW and cut out the lascannon and heavy bolter and glue on a plastic rokkit launcher and another dread claw and guess what now its a legit model in the current game. Making it a legitimate conversion of a model.

oh and I can aim down the gun barrel....but of course rokkits don't have barrels so I guess RAW you can't fire them..or any missile for that matter that's not enclosed in a barrel. Sorry manticores and deathstrikes...

blaktoof wrote:
you really are trying to say its not a model, even though it was produced as a model, because there are no current profiles for it?

It is no longer a model because "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."

The cardboard cutout does not have this and it not a model.

theres a slew of models that no longer have rules for every faction. They are still all models. They just no longer have rules to play them.

No, if they dont have rules they are no longer models. (as far as the 40k rules are concerned).

You can counts as a model with a profile, but since they do not have "a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." Then they are no longer a model.

If you like we could take the cardboard cut out, and use a pair of hobby knives produced by GW and cut out the lascannon and heavy bolter and glue on a plastic rokkit launcher and another dread claw and guess what now its a legit model in the current game. Making it a legitimate conversion of a model.

oh and I can aim down the gun barrel....but of course rokkits don't have barrels so I guess RAW you can't fire them..or any missile for that matter that's not enclosed in a barrel. Sorry manticores and deathstrikes...

Except conversions are not covered by the rules and that would need opponents permission to be considered a model.

What you mean to say is

"yes Blaktoof, It is a model, but it doesn't have any rules to play with"

as there is no quote in the rules you can supply that say "if it doesn't have rules it's not a model"

because you have made this up from the section models and units which states that the models used to play the game..

this means that models that are used to play the game have the following rules.

This does not mean if you do not have the following rules you are not a model.

Therefore the old stand-up card Dread model does not have those rules and cannot be used to play currently, similarily the old metal dread produced by citadel would not be valid for play for the same reason, it does not however state that they are not models.


40k 2nd edition rulebook quote:

We have included a stand-up card dreadnaught model with the game.

and there is no section that says you need permission to use conversions.


There is a section that is titled "personalizing your miniatures" that mentions kitbashing and conversions and taking parts from one ...but nothing about needing permission. can you quote that somehow? They do describe taking parts from one GW kit and cutting off a gun or head and using parts from another. Using this statement from the rulebook we would be able to cut off the guns from the "Stand-up card dreadnaught model" GW words not mine, and glue some some klaws or big shootas in their place from another GW kit. Sounds like a proper conversion to me from what I am reading. Taking 1 model and combining it with another to make a conversion.

I'd say yes.

Not only because it's a GW release, but because it's AWESOME!!! So much nostalgia.

If you have one of these in usable condition I'd play you in a second.

blaktoof wrote:
What you mean to say is

"yes Blaktoof, It is a model, but it doesn't have any rules to play with"

No, what I mean to say is "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."

If something is claimed to be a model it will have "a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." and certainly someone can produce the current profile for such, or concede that it is not a model as far as the 7th ed rules are concerned.

as there is no quote in the rules you can supply that say "if it doesn't have rules it's not a model"