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.

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.

Yes when you leave off the first part of the text that creates context it is possible to overreach greatly and twist it to say that "if the model doesn't have rules its not a model"

So it is a model, its not used to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 because it does not have its own characteristic profile

regardless.

If you take the cardboard model and cut out the guns with your official GW hobby tools that are not WYSIWYG and then put plastic guns in their place with your official GW hobby glue, you have an model that was an official model, is not currently WYSIWYG and has been converted to be WYSIWYG.

Your thoughts on that?

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.

so your saying


is not a model.

I would play against it, even though it is not a model and it is not WYSIWYG, without the modifications if the player were not trying to hide the thin part behind a blade of grass and claim that it is out of Line of Sight.

Same goes for a converted model, I would play against it but the same provisions apply.


P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

yeah :(

primarchs used to not be so tall.

blaktoof wrote:
is not a model.

As far as the rules governing the game are concerned, no.
Yes, it fits the normal English definition of a model. (un)Fortunately, 40k has re-defined what a model is.
Arguing using any other definition is simply incorrect as far as the actual rules go.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I
P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

Uh, I can see it...

I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules. Run him as a Wolf Lord with two Fenrisian Wolves and I'm fine. Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex. This is a fraggin' game! have some fun with it!

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...



Oh, well. Somehow I'll live.

On the RAW front, the damn cutout is made by GW and thus legit. Get over it.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules.

Which is exactly what DR said...

Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex.

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...

I would because it has nothing to do with GW or not. I don't even care a little bit.
As long as it's in line with the actual model and close to WYSIWYG I don't care. A cardboard standin isn't close to the actual model.

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

Uh, yeah it is. The thing is made by GW. It is meant to be a dreadnought. It is on the base provided by GW.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

Nope, not what people are complaining about. At all. Try again maybe?

Uh, yeah it is. The thing is made by GW. It is meant to be a dreadnought. It is on the base provided by GW.

It's not about not being a "perfect representation" - which is what you said (that you left out of your response).

It's the fact that it's nothing like what people are trying to use it as. Like - at all. Wrong weapons, it's 2 dimensional... the only redeeming feature is nostalgia and there's no reason to get in a tizzy over the rules if that's literally the only reason you want to field it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Wrong weapons.

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout.

Again, the thing is a GW creation on a GW base. The one provided. Fits the criteria.

Edit: Edition added.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wrong weapons.

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout.

Without conversion? Yeah, based solely on that. If you read my actual post, however, and not just your selective editing you'll note I had more than one objection to it.
It's almost like there's a huge difference between a 2d "model" and a 3d model in a game based on TLOS and distance in 3 dimensions. Who'da thunk it.

Again, the thing is a GW creation on a GW base. The one provided. Fits the criteria.

No, it doesn't. Seriously.

I think some people are a bit too super cereal about the game.

Ork armies usually contain plenty of cardboard, whats wrong with another piece?

Seriously.

Grats, guys, five pages and going strong. Ask yourself, which is more important, having fun or having accurate models?

RAW does not forbid this, why should you?

 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.

A small, 2D, cardboard cutout with nowhere to draw line of sight from, no weapons and no gun barrels to shoot from does not adequately represent a large, 3d, plastic model, which has all of the things required to play a standard game of Warhammer 40k.

"not just your selective editing"

It's not "selective editing", it's picking your argument apart. Your argument gets rid of ALL counts-as minis, and leaves only current "real" GW minis. Rule of cool.

By your rationale a great number of another poster on this thread's minis, which are all real GW minis on GW bases that were provided (I know this person IRL and I know his army and he knows what he's saying) would be invalid. No creativity whatsoever. Ever.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but it's a Games Workshop product on a Games Workshop base. The one provided. What we're disagreeing on is what constitutes a miniature. How 2D does something have to be to not be a miniature to you? This miniature is a three dimensional object. Just because it doesn't conform to your standards does not mean it is not a real GW product in three dimensions.

Please tell me, what constitutes a miniature to you?

Specifically.

If it's the number of dimensions an object exists in you've failed in your argument.

If it's weather or not a mini has the exact same weapons described in the codex (despite there being an equivalent in said codex), *the specific ones*, nobody who doesn't use an exact current mini in the GW product range (damn, some of my personal Space Wolves are out of date, guess I'm screwed) can enter a tournament.

Or even play the game.

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

Sorry, but if you debate these points you're just plain wrong.

Naw wrote:Ask yourself, which is more important, having fun or having accurate models?

What makes you think those two things are exclusive?

We're talking about a miniatures game. It shouldn't be too surprising that people would prefer to play with miniatures rather than cardboard cutouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

No, the point is that the 'dreadnought' in question is a piece of cardboard with a picture of a dreadnought on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

So then a 1st or 2nd edition dread would be invalid? The pewter one? Same weapon loadout..

Yes. Just as all those 2nd Ed Blood Claws armed with power fist and are currently invalid. Just as the razorback with Las/plas was invalid for several editions.

Edition changes quite often require models to be either converted to remain current, retired, or counted as something else.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:
"not just your selective editing"

It's not "selective editing", it's picking your argument apart. Your argument gets rid of ALL counts-as minis, and leaves only current "real" GW minis. Rule of cool.

No, it doesn't. I even spelled it out for you. And it is selective editing as you only addressed a single opposition, not both.
Picking my argument apart would mean addressing all my points, not just one.

By your rationale a great number of another poster on this thread's minis, which are all real GW minis on GW bases that were provided (I know this person IRL and I know his army and he knows what he's saying) would be invalid. No creativity whatsoever. Ever.

If you truly think that, you've literally not read my posts. At all. Please do so.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but it's a Games Workshop product on a Games Workshop base. The one provided. What we're disagreeing on is what constitutes a miniature. How 2D does something have to be to not be a miniature to you? This miniature is a three dimensional object. Just because it doesn't conform to your standards does not mean it is not a real GW product in three dimensions.

Please tell me, what constitutes a miniature to you?

Not a single piece of cardboard.

If it's the number of dimensions an object exists in you've failed in your argument.

Why, exactly?

If it's weather or not a mini has the exact same weapons described in the codex (despite there being an equivalent in said codex), *the specific ones*, nobody who doesn't use an exact current mini in the GW product range (damn, some of my personal Space Wolves are out of date, guess I'm screwed) can enter a tournament.

Why yes, WYSIWYG is important. I'm not the only one who thinks so. I'm surprised you're so shocked about it.

The point is, the Dreadnought in question IS a three dimensional object. It IS a GW product. It IS on the base provided.

It is? I mean - sure it exists so it's technically a 3dimensional object, the same way a square on a piece of paper is a 3 dimensional object.
To most people, pictures on a piece of paper aren't 3 dimensional.

Sorry, but if you debate these points you're just plain wrong.

Yeah, if you just approach discussions with the viewpoint that you're correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong it's perfectly normal.

I would prefer not, but it is official and totally legal.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I
P.S. clearly "403 Forbidden" is not a model...

Uh, I can see it...

I'd go up against the old Leman Russ mini any day, provided it had rules. Run him as a Wolf Lord with two Fenrisian Wolves and I'm fine. Wow, it's so sad to see people griping about things that aren't "perfect representations" of what's in the codex. This is a fraggin' game! have some fun with it!

1) I couldn't see it, the page opened had a "403 Forbidden" error.

...but I'm guessing you wouldn't play against me either because my "Tau army" isn't 100% GW...

Spoiler:

Oh, well. Somehow I'll live.

Why would you think I would not play against your "Tau army"?

Did you miss that I would play against the cardboard cutout if it was a counts as and they were liberal on my units drawing Line of Sight to the cardboard?

On the RAW front, the damn cutout is made by GW and thus legit. Get over it.

No, it really is not "legit" and there is nothing to get over.

It is not a model as 40k defines it as "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).

If you can not produce a profile for it, then it is not a model.

 PhillyT wrote:
I would prefer not, but it is official and totally legal.

It's legal to use as part of the scenario it came with, not in regular play, as GW themselves said that it is not a "real substitute".

 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.

You wouldn't happen to have a picture of that in its entirety? I don't think people are reading the full thread.

"Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model" yes it's made by GW but they are still claiming it is not a Citadel model. It most surely is not fluff. I'm sure gw is just giving us permission to use it only for the demo but I don't have the thing to check.

The whole LOS and weapons argument is going off on a tangent and is another can of worms.

How i would play? I'd still play it for giggles. But word of god is it isn't a "real substitute for a Citadel model". It just isn't a real boy just a wooden one

Oberron wrote:
"Although this is no real substitute for a Citadel model" yes it's made by GW but they are still claiming it is not a Citadel model. It most surely is not fluff. I'm sure gw is just giving us permission to use it only for the demo but I don't have the thing to check.

The whole LOS and weapons argument is going off on a tangent and is another can of worms.

How i would play? I'd still play it for giggles. But word of god is it isn't a "real substitute for a Citadel model". It just isn't a real boy just a wooden one

This 'model' is a playing piece to be used in a single scenario, and not a 'model' for ongoing games. It was intended to make that one game better than the actual models in the box would have.

But, I'd play against it, if the person using it had no actual Dreadnought models.
It is a Counts-As, and not a great one at that.

This is now my favorite thread.

Man, this became SO HEATED over such a non-issue.

Why did you ask the internet? You don't play against the internet. You don't need their permission. When you ask the internet anything, you get:

"Yes"
"no"
"lol"
"you suck"
"I'm hungry"
"you're an idiot for thinking whatever it was you're thinking"
"first!"
"oops not first, I was too slow"
"I was slow once"
"you're still slow"
"BURRRRRRRRNNNNNN!!!!"
"fire is afraid chuck norris will burn IT"


Seriously. Ask your gaming group, the guys you play against. We're no help.

For what it's worth (and it's worth nothing), I wouldn't mind it.

If, however, you had like nine of the things and it seemed pretty apparent you were printing them out for your own use instead of buying dreads and instead of using ye olde 2nd edition model for nostalgia, then I would have a problem.

 Spellbound wrote:
Man, this became SO HEATED over such a non-issue.

This. Now how about a mod lock this?

I'm surprised I kind of just asked it as a joke. I didn't think it'd have like 5 pages of heated debate over it.

It wasn't particularly 'heated'... But either way we appear to be about done here.