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.

notredameguy10 wrote:


yes exactly. If its a casual game then your opponent will have no problem allowing it. If it is a tournament game then no, RAW disallows it because you are cheating to get an advantage.

I read earlier, his TO said it was cool, so it's allowed and his opponents just need to accept it and move on.

there is no model for it, like the orks looted wagon. Yet if you make something that resembles it, you can use it. Who knows, if a official model is ever made for it, it might even be taller than what the OP made his.

Sn33R wrote:
Hello I've been searching and searching but here goes.. in the stronghold assault barricades is an upgrade for a plasma obliterator, the rules for barricades are 6" long nothing about height. Now a plasma obliterator is 7 " tall if I model my barricade 6" long and 2" high my fort will gain a 4+ cover save. There is nothing in the rules to counter as fortifications use the same rules as vehicles so gain a cover save? Am I correct it just being an ass.. cheers guys rob.

Putting aside the argument about Citadel Models for a moment - The barricades are an upgrade for the Plasma Obliterator. Meaning they're a part of the Plasma Obliterator 'unit' (for want of a better word where buildings are concerned).

So they wouldn't grant a cover save to the Plasma Obliterator, any more than additional squad members added to a Tactical Squad would grant a cover save to the original 5 members of the unit. Units don't get to give themselves cover saves.

 insaniak wrote:

Sn33R wrote:
Hello I've been searching and searching but here goes.. in the stronghold assault barricades is an upgrade for a plasma obliterator, the rules for barricades are 6" long nothing about height. Now a plasma obliterator is 7 " tall if I model my barricade 6" long and 2" high my fort will gain a 4+ cover save. There is nothing in the rules to counter as fortifications use the same rules as vehicles so gain a cover save? Am I correct it just being an ass.. cheers guys rob.

Putting aside the argument about Citadel Models for a moment - The barricades are an upgrade for the Plasma Obliterator. Meaning they're a part of the Plasma Obliterator 'unit' (for want of a better word where buildings are concerned).

So they wouldn't grant a cover save to the Plasma Obliterator, any more than additional squad members added to a Tactical Squad would grant a cover save to the original 5 members of the unit. Units don't get to give themselves cover saves.

And in the mod comes with the best explanation and example... Thank you!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Sorry, nope. You've not even provided reference for your own claim. I've given one example and pointed out the rules make common reference to non-specific terrain and scenery; no mention of Citadel at all.

"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, 1st graph).

There is the rule.

Do you have a rule stating you can use something other than Citadel models?

If so Page and Graph please.

That simply says that the Citadel miniatures used to play the game are referred to as models. It creates no requirement for Citadel miniatures only.

'Measuring Distances' from the General Principles section mentions non-Citadel terrain though:

"Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base."

'Cocked Dice':

"Occasionally, a dice will end up in a crevice in your terrain..."

My terrain? I thought it had to be Citadel terrain!

'Scatter':

"If an arrow is rolled, move the object the distance shown on the 2D6 in the direction of the arrow. Ignore intervening terrain, units, etc., unless the rule states otherwise."

Not intervening Citadel terrain? Sweet, I can use normal terrain!

'Line of Sight':

"Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)."

Not Citadel battlefield terrain? Okay, guess I can use my own!

There are any number of references to using and interacting with terrain without any mention of it needing to be "Citadel" terrain. And once again you've yet to provide "page and 'graph" to support your own position that the rules require and allow only Citadel miniatures.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Sorry, nope. You've not even provided reference for your own claim. I've given one example and pointed out the rules make common reference to non-specific terrain and scenery; no mention of Citadel at all.

"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, 1st graph).

There is the rule.

Do you have a rule stating you can use something other than Citadel models?

If so Page and Graph please.

That simply says that the Citadel miniatures used to play the game are referred to as models. It creates no requirement for Citadel miniatures only.

'Measuring Distances' from the General Principles section mentions non-Citadel terrain though:

"Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base."

'Cocked Dice':

"Occasionally, a dice will end up in a crevice in your terrain..."

My terrain? I thought it had to be Citadel terrain!

'Scatter':

"If an arrow is rolled, move the object the distance shown on the 2D6 in the direction of the arrow. Ignore intervening terrain, units, etc., unless the rule states otherwise."

Not intervening Citadel terrain? Sweet, I can use normal terrain!

'Line of Sight':

"Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)."

Not Citadel battlefield terrain? Okay, guess I can use my own!

There are any number of references to using and interacting with terrain without any mention of it needing to be "Citadel" terrain. And once again you've yet to provide "page and 'graph" to support your own position that the rules require and allow only Citadel miniatures.

If you are arguing now for the sake of arguing that's fine, but his attempt at a cover save has already been proven why it will not and can not work. Just want make sure you aren't fighting an already horribly embarrassing lost battle

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If you are arguing now for the sake of arguing that's fine, but his attempt at a cover save has already been proven why it will not and can not work. Just want make sure you aren't fighting an already horribly embarrassing lost battle

If you are posting now for the sake of posting that's fine, but your attempt at trying to prove me wrong has already been proven why I wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place that it was at least against the spirit of the game and indeed has now evidently been proven not possible per the rules thanks to insaniak. Just want to make sure you aren't fighting an already horribly embarassing lost battle

Now stop bandwagoning someone else's success at disproving something we all agreed was a dick move if (and proven not to be) legal at all. My post was clearly not at all about it being legal, but on the other subject of an unsubstantiated claim that there is a rule to enforce the use of Citadel miniatures only.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
stop bandwagoning someone else's success at disproving something we all agreed was a dick move if (and proven not to be) legal at all. My post was clearly not at all about it being legal, but on the other subject of an unsubstantiated claim that there is a rule to enforce the use of Citadel miniatures only.

unsubstantiated claim?

So you are saying that you can use something other than Citadel mins?

Please cite the rule that allows it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
stop bandwagoning someone else's success at disproving something we all agreed was a dick move if (and proven not to be) legal at all. My post was clearly not at all about it being legal, but on the other subject of an unsubstantiated claim that there is a rule to enforce the use of Citadel miniatures only.

unsubstantiated claim?

So you are saying that you can use something other than Citadel mins?

Please cite the rule that allows it.

You're shifting the burden. Again.

OP's question has been answered. I'm not going to engage in a rules penis measuring contest for the sake of it, especially not when someone expects me to reference a counter-argument to an improperly referenced argument.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
stop bandwagoning someone else's success at disproving something we all agreed was a dick move if (and proven not to be) legal at all. My post was clearly not at all about it being legal, but on the other subject of an unsubstantiated claim that there is a rule to enforce the use of Citadel miniatures only.

unsubstantiated claim?

So you are saying that you can use something other than Citadel mins?

Please cite the rule that allows it.

You're shifting the burden. Again.

OP's question has been answered. I'm not going to engage in a rules penis measuring contest for the sake of it, especially not when someone expects me to reference a counter-argument to an improperly referenced argument.

So you don't have a rule that says you can use Non-Citadel models?

Then it settles it, you can not use Non-Citadel models as per the RAW.

I provided multiple references to using terrain without the Citadel prefix.

You haven't provided any requirement to counter the permission I've shown for general, non-Citadel terrain.

Until you do that - and you seem fixated on refusing to do so - we're done here.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I provided multiple references to using terrain without the Citadel prefix.
.

If you establish at the start that the rules are referring to Citadel models, there is no need to add the Citadel tag every time from there on in for it to still apply. You've already established that whenever the rules refer to models, they're talking about Citadel models.


However, I think the whole 'Citadel model' argument is a bit of a red herring in this particular discussion... particularly in regards to terrain, where people building their own is not only encouraged by the rules but is also pretty much expected by most players.


So given that the point of that tangent was originally just to point out that non-standard models may need your opponent's consent, can we maybe move on? Otherwise, if nobody has anything else constructive to add to the discussion, I think we're done here.