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.

Does anyone know if there is an official rule that states that you can not use a generic model as a character model (assuming they are equipped correctly)? I know that there used to be a ruling that you could use a character model as its generic counterpart. I guess this even goes toward whether you could kit bash a character model or is there some rule that states that if you want to use a character you must use the properly designated (by GW) model?

For example could I use a tau commander in a suit as one of the character commanders even if GW makes that specific character's model (again assuming that the equipment is correct)?

I know that it is up to the individuals playing or the TO at an event but I was wondering if the rules cover the instance in the first place.

People definitely do kitbash their own versions of named characters. I'm not aware of an official rule against it. Doubt you'd get much pushback even in a GW store so long as your counts as model fills similar physical dimensions as the official one.

As long as it's fairly clear that it is the character, I'd say it's fine.

EG, if you just have a generic catachan sergeant in a ctachan army, but claim it's sly marbo, it will get lost amongst the other similar models. In a cadian army, less of an issue, the model is clearly different.

With the Tau battlesuit, it would be worth making an effort to make it look a bit like the character in question, and make sure it has no confusing wargear. WYSIWYG isn't a rule any more, as BCB may already be typing, so RAW you can use your wife as your Tau commander, but your opponent may not be happy with that arrangement unless you glue a base to her feet.

Technically speaking, it would be in the realm of MFA as the regular crisis' base is smaller than that of commander from the actual commander box (general rule of thumb; models going bigger than normal is ok, models going smaller than normal is bad - double standard much?) So I would keep that in mind for future discussions with TO's.

 skchsan wrote:
Technically speaking, it would be in the realm of MFA as the regular crisis' base is smaller than that of commander from the actual commander box (general rule of thumb; models going bigger than normal is ok, models going smaller than normal is bad - double standard much?) So I would keep that in mind for future discussions with TO's.

Farsight and Shadowsun are on the same bases as Crisis suits.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Does anyone know if there is an official rule that states that you can not use a generic model as a character model (assuming they are equipped correctly)?"

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after they were removed and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean it is allowed.

The rules system is permissive, so you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do, and nothing else.

You have to have a rule stating you can do something, but in this case the rules are lacking.

I know that there used to be a ruling that you could use a character model as its generic counterpart. I guess this even goes toward whether you could kit bash a character model or is there some rule that states that if you want to use a character you must use the properly designated (by GW) model?

There are not any rules that state "if you want to use a character you must use the properly designated (by GW) model"

For example could I use a tau commander in a suit as one of the character commanders even if GW makes that specific character's model (again assuming that the equipment is correct)?

The rules really do not cover this situation.

I know that it is up to the individuals playing or the TO at an event but I was wondering if the rules cover the instance in the first place.

The rules really do not cover it. Ask your TO or opponent.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Technically speaking, it would be in the realm of MFA as the regular crisis' base is smaller than that of commander from the actual commander box (general rule of thumb; models going bigger than normal is ok, models going smaller than normal is bad - double standard much?) So I would keep that in mind for future discussions with TO's.

Farsight and Shadowsun are on the same bases as Crisis suits.

Farsight and Shadowsuns are not generic commanders.Scratch that. Misread the OP.

They should really add this question from the Age of Sigmar Designers' Commentary to the 40K Main Rulebook FAQ:

Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?

A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.

@Deathreaper- Thank you for your less than helpful answers as well as the snarky attitude. All you did was answer in platitudes that did not clarify any question other than "How can I look smart without actually answering the question or help clear up the issue."

@Ghaz- That was more or less what I was looking for. GW seems to be doing its usual waffle dance. Yes, we want you to kit bash and explore the boundaries of modeling but we don't want you to use things that we don't provide. So, it looks like GW's official response is no proxies. The part about you can if your opponent is OK with it is just stupid since the whole game is "with your opponent's agreement".

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
@Ghaz- That was more or less what I was looking for. GW seems to be doing its usual waffle dance. Yes, we want you to kit bash and explore the boundaries of modeling but we don't want you to use things that we don't provide. So, it looks like GW's official response is no proxies. The part about you can if your opponent is OK with it is just stupid since the whole game is "with your opponent's agreement".

That's their official response for Age of Sigmar. Trying to use that ruling for Warhammer 40,000 may be problematic depending on your opponent or tournament organizer.

RaW you may not, you only have permission to use the correct model for the correct datasheet.

Being a pure RaW follower- where does it say that? I believe that that is a presumption on your part.

The closest to what you are saying is found on page 176 of the BRB that states: "The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle."

Note that it does not say that a model can only be used for one datasheet all it literally says is that you need a datasheet to use a model for a game. The rule doesn't say that there are specific models that are tied to only one specific datasheet in fact it doesn't even state that there are specific models to go with any specific datasheet. Per RaW I can use tyranid models as space marines as long as I tie them to the space marine datasheet.

If you want to argue that the packaging that the models come in determine the datasheet then you would have a problem since Tac Squads come in Blood Angel and generic space marine with no way to tell which is which. It could also be argued that changing a key word would change the datasheet so that you would have to disallow a player from using his same models in different chapters (he could not buy 2 boxes of SM and make one Red chapter and the other Blue chapter). There are few people who would say that an army playing in organized play couldn't legally have a detachment of 3 ultramarine bikes and another detachment of 3 white scar bikes in the same battleforce.

As far as I was aware, you could use pocket change to stand in for models, as long as you were clear on what they were. If the primary purpose of a game is to have fun, then I don't believe that wealth (or lack thereof) should be a barrier to play.

 flandarz wrote:
As far as I was aware, you could use pocket change to stand in for models, as long as you were clear on what they were. If the primary purpose of a game is to have fun, then I don't believe that wealth (or lack thereof) should be a barrier to play.

I thought that too, but it was pointed out to me this is not the case. And thus that was the day someone changed their mind when presented evidence to the contrary!

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Being a pure RaW follower- where does it say that? I believe that that is a presumption on your part.

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection...

This establishes that you use "Citadel Miniatures" when playing 40K

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:MODELS & DATASHEETS
The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle.

This establishes that the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures") have and are presented on datasheets.

So the Datasheets are for the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures").

So if a Datasheet says "HELBRUTE" (P. 82 Death Guard codex), you need to use a "HELBRUTE" model

That being said, if you have a generic model appropriately modeled to represent a specific special character, you're unlikely to run into any issues using it.

I like the idea of making a special character into your dude. I'd never have a problem with it

 DeathReaper wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Being a pure RaW follower- where does it say that? I believe that that is a presumption on your part.

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection...

This establishes that you use "Citadel Miniatures" when playing 40K

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:MODELS & DATASHEETS
The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle.

This establishes that the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures") have and are presented on datasheets.

So the Datasheets are for the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures").

So if a Datasheet says "HELBRUTE" (P. 82 Death Guard codex), you need to use a "HELBRUTE" model

'Citadel Miniatures'. So you use two or three 'Citadel Miniatures' to kitbash a model. It's still 100% a citadel miniature.

What some people are suggesting in this thread is to take the hobby part of the game, take it out back and brain it with a sledge.

Of course you can build and convert your own characters and use them as codex ones. It even tells you how to do it in the Grey Knights dex.

Banville wrote:
'Citadel Miniatures'. So you use two or three 'Citadel Miniatures' to kitbash a model. It's still 100% a citadel miniature.

No, technically that is not a "Citadel Miniature" it is several, and by RAW not allowed. (Though most people do not have issues with people kitbashing models).

What some people are suggesting in this thread is to take the hobby part of the game, take it out back and brain it with a sledge.

Of course you can build and convert your own characters and use them as codex ones. It even tells you how to do it in the Grey Knights dex.

The BRB RAW does not let you do so, but I have not run into anyone that had an issue with a kitbash.

Of course, in the real world, Codexes and other GW media show kitbashes and conversions and people play using special characters as generic and vice versa just fine, in everything from friendlies to tournaments.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Of course, in the real world, Codexes and other GW media show kitbashes and conversions and people play using special characters as generic and vice versa just fine, in everything from friendlies to tournaments.

Actually, isn't there a whole two pages of the Guard codex devoted to kitbashing?

Banville wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Of course, in the real world, Codexes and other GW media show kitbashes and conversions and people play using special characters as generic and vice versa just fine, in everything from friendlies to tournaments.

Actually, isn't there a whole two pages of the Guard codex devoted to kitbashing?

Yep!

(Inb4 “model photos aren’t rules!”)

Banville wrote:

What some people are suggesting in this thread is to take the hobby part of the game, take it out back and brain it with a sledge.

That's not what people are suggesting at all. What they're saying is that from a purely RAW perspective, there is no specific allowance to use converted miniatures. The rules simply assume that you are using the 'correct' miniature for its corresponding datasheet.

Nobody is saying that this means you shouldn't actually use conversions. In practice, the vast majority of players either don't care or will be more than happy to see creative models, so long as you are using something that looks appropriate for what it is supposed to be.

 insaniak wrote:

Banville wrote:

What some people are suggesting in this thread is to take the hobby part of the game, take it out back and brain it with a sledge.

That's not what people are suggesting at all. What they're saying is that from a purely RAW perspective, there is no specific allowance to use converted miniatures. The rules simply assume that you are using the 'correct' miniature for its corresponding datasheet.

Nobody is saying that this means you shouldn't actually use conversions. In practice, the vast majority of players either don't care or will be more than happy to see creative models, so long as you are using something that looks appropriate for what it is supposed to be.

Insaniak is correct. "from a purely RAW perspective, there is no specific allowance to use converted miniatures."

But i have not run into a single player that has not allowed my kitbashed Blood Angel Librarian. (Which is mostly the Kaldor Draigo model).

Using something that looks appropriate for what it is supposed to be is the key with most players I suspect.

You don’t have a rules allowance to use fingers or hands either. But that’s a level of pedantry only equaled by “you don’t have a rules allowance to play the game with your models”.

Mmm, the rules of the game have always been a bit flimsy even when people try to shoehorn it into a competitive realm. A model in theory has a unique silhouette and when we moved from "small" "medium" and "large" models that dictated what could and could not be seen over then moved to true line of sight that theoretical silhouette became more important. But if said outline of a model does not change in any appreciable way, the wargear that model has represents what's meant to be on the model, and it has flavour and personality that meshes with the models around it I'd have no issue.

Another comparison would be generic models, line troopers converted to be generic characters. Such as an ork nob being converted into a Big mek. Give it loads of bits, the relevant wargear and it'll stand out from the models around it while being what it's meant to be. Especially helpful considering some models are becoming OOP as time goes on.

The game simply isn't tight enough for minor differences in modeling to matter much, and as long as this special character stands out from those around it and looks awesome I'd have no issues.

Sterling191 wrote:
You don’t have a rules allowance to use fingers or hands either. But that’s a level of pedantry only equaled by “you don’t have a rules allowance to play the game with your models”.

There are a few assumptions the 40k rules use, such as:

The common English definitions for words are used if they are not defined in the 40K rules.

Dice are six sided.

Dice are numbered 1-6 (One number per side).

You can use your fingers or hands to move your models around.

You should use an accurate measuring device, in inches.

Etc...

It does not have to have a rules allowance for you to do those things.

No one said “you don’t have a rules allowance to play the game with your models”

There is an allowance to use "Citadel Miniatures" but "there is no specific allowance to use converted miniatures." -insaniak

Note it says, and is talking about converted models... you have permission to use models, but no permission to use conversions.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Being a pure RaW follower- where does it say that? I believe that that is a presumption on your part.

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection...

This establishes that you use "Citadel Miniatures" when playing 40K

40K Battle Primer Page 2 wrote:MODELS & DATASHEETS
The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features, are presented on datasheets, which you will need in order to use the models in battle.

This establishes that the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures") have and are presented on datasheets.

So the Datasheets are for the models (aka "Citadel Miniatures").

So if a Datasheet says "HELBRUTE" (P. 82 Death Guard codex), you need to use a "HELBRUTE" model

Banville wrote:
'Citadel Miniatures'. So you use two or three 'Citadel Miniatures' to kitbash a model. It's still 100% a citadel miniature.

No, technically that is not a "Citadel Miniature" it is several, and by RAW not allowed. (Though most people do not have issues with people kitbashing models).

What some people are suggesting in this thread is to take the hobby part of the game, take it out back and brain it with a sledge.

Of course you can build and convert your own characters and use them as codex ones. It even tells you how to do it in the Grey Knights dex.

The BRB RAW does not let you do so, but I have not run into anyone that had an issue with a kitbash.

The rules do not say "a citadel miniature". They say "your citadel miniatures collection". Conversions could be part of that collection. RAW say nothing at all about conversions.

Just as with WYSIWYG, when using a conversion, kitbash, or otherwise using one thing to represent another, like a special character, you need to check with your opponent or TO.

To be clear, there is no specifically written rule that says that you have to use the 'correct' model. It's just an assumption based on the whole 'models have a datasheet' thing, and the absence of aforementioned rule.

It's certainly not something worth getting into an extended debate over. In practice, nobody's going to stop you from using an appropriate conversion.

Orbei wrote:
The rules do not say "a citadel miniature". They say "your citadel miniatures collection".

It does not matter that They say "your citadel miniatures collection" because "a citadel miniature" is a part of "your citadel miniatures collection".

Conversions could be part of that collection. RAW say nothing at all about conversions.

No, conversions can not be part of that collection. as there is no rule allowing it. RAW being silent does not mean it is allowed.

Conversions are no longer "citadel miniatures" they are not produced by Citadel at all. The parts are, but 3 parts of one kit, 2 of another and 1 of a third etc... is no longer a citadel miniature. In context, citadel miniatures means the whole models that they sell.

Just as with WYSIWYG, when using a conversion, kitbash, or otherwise using one thing to represent another, like a special character, you need to check with your opponent or TO.

This is of course correct.

Any time you have something non-standard you should check with your opponent or TO first.