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.

 p5freak wrote:
You are wrong. The core rules are for citadel miniatures, and those are from GW.

Warhammer 40,000 puts you in command of a force of mighty warriors and war
machines. The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games
of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection and to wage glorious
battle across the war-torn galaxy.

Eh, that's quite weak in all honesty. It reads to me like you can use the rules with your citadel miniatures, not that you must.

This is an intro blurb, not a rule in itself.

 p5freak wrote:
You are wrong. The core rules are for citadel miniatures, and those are from GW.

Warhammer 40,000 puts you in command of a force of mighty warriors and war
machines. The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games
of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection and to wage glorious
battle across the war-torn galaxy.

Page 13:

A big part of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby is collecting the warriors and war machines that fight these spectacular battles, building and painting them to create and exciting and diverse collection of which you can be rightly proud. There are many ways to go about this, and all of them are equally valid."

And Citadel miniatures you say? The rules now prohibit Forgeworld miniatures? We're required to use Citadel ruins, trees, and so on for scenery?

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You are wrong. The core rules are for citadel miniatures, and those are from GW.

Warhammer 40,000 puts you in command of a force of mighty warriors and war
machines. The core rules on these pages contain the foundation for playing games
of Warhammer 40,000 with your Citadel Miniatures collection and to wage glorious
battle across the war-torn galaxy.

Page 13:

A big part of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby is collecting the warriors and war machines that fight these spectacular battles, building and painting them to create and exciting and diverse collection of which you can be rightly proud. There are many ways to go about this, and all of them are equally valid."

And Citadel miniatures you say? The rules now prohibit Forgeworld miniatures? We're required to use Citadel ruins, trees, and so on for scenery?

Forgeworld is a citadel product. You only need to use citadel miniatures to represent datasheets, the terrain which does not use datasheets does not require a datasheet and you are specifically allowed to use any terrain in your collection to populate your battlefield, you are not allowed to use any model but the correct one for each datasheet. You cannot use your piggy bank to represent a Firestorm Redoubt (TM) but you can use it to represent a rock or a giant piggy bank.

Gw's intent and hope that they can't voice is that you will shelf your metal Tiggy forever and buy the new model

GW's official line will be that they encourage creativity and love to see old models on the table

Use your metal models as a litmus test. If someone doesn't want to play against them using what would have been just updated rules before the Primaris fiasco, you wouldn't have enjoyed the game anyway.

 =Angel= wrote:
Gw's intent and hope that they can't voice is that you will shelf your metal Tiggy forever and buy the new model

GW's official line will be that they encourage creativity and love to see old models on the table

Use your metal models as a litmus test. If someone doesn't want to play against them using what would have been just updated rules before the Primaris fiasco, you wouldn't have enjoyed the game anyway.

You can do that in a tonne of other ways as well, but I think it's totally fair to insist that your model you bought maybe less than a year ago still be usable, it's just not within the rules of the game I don't think. Would it be better if GW's official stance was "you can use whatever you like as long as your opponent agrees and you're not being a git about it"? Probably, but people gonna people and having a raw interpretation that is restrictive to the point that you can't do anything but assemble the models as pictured, is better than interpreting the rules to mean you can bring a 25 mm Knight Crusader.

 vict0988 wrote:

Forgeworld is a citadel product.

Citation needed.

You only need to use citadel miniatures to represent datasheets, the terrain which does not use datasheets does not require a datasheet and you are specifically allowed to use any terrain in your collection to populate your battlefield, you are not allowed to use any model but the correct one for each datasheet.

Double standard noted - There is no datasheet for teleport homers, but there's a model for it.

Also why would they have to RE-Create these rules for their GT if.. they're already rules?

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/06/40k-grand-tournament-usa-5-things-to-know-before-you-go.html

 vict0988 wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
Gw's intent and hope that they can't voice is that you will shelf your metal Tiggy forever and buy the new model

GW's official line will be that they encourage creativity and love to see old models on the table

Use your metal models as a litmus test. If someone doesn't want to play against them using what would have been just updated rules before the Primaris fiasco, you wouldn't have enjoyed the game anyway.

You can do that in a tonne of other ways as well, but I think it's totally fair to insist that your model you bought maybe less than a year ago still be usable, it's just not within the rules of the game I don't think. Would it be better if GW's official stance was "you can use whatever you like as long as your opponent agrees and you're not being a git about it"? Probably, but people gonna people and having a raw interpretation that is restrictive to the point that you can't do anything but assemble the models as pictured, is better than interpreting the rules to mean you can bring a 25 mm Knight Crusader.

Thing is, they have put that. Open Play exists, and that can mean including a single tweak to the core rules to suit two gamers, not just "we've gone full role-play on this one".

Open Play allows for "all Matched Play rules but allowing this one thing". Open Play is not a swear word (sorry Dakka it really isn't), and the universe doesn't explode when you modify the rules.

So, it's not really needed that GW put this, but it's there if you read the BRB.


Anyway, I agree with =Angel= that someone protesting the use of one of your models that has rules just because there's a shiny new £40 plastic version is a great way to avoid wasting several hours playing against a miserable no-fun player. You've dodged a bullet there and can save time unpacking your models.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Forgeworld is a citadel product.

Citation needed.

You only need to use citadel miniatures to represent datasheets, the terrain which does not use datasheets does not require a datasheet and you are specifically allowed to use any terrain in your collection to populate your battlefield, you are not allowed to use any model but the correct one for each datasheet.

Double standard noted - There is no datasheet for teleport homers, but there's a model for it.

Also why would they have to RE-Create these rules for their GT if.. they're already rules?

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/06/40k-grand-tournament-usa-5-things-to-know-before-you-go.html

Citadel is no longer a seperate company or branch and the FW indexes don't differentiate between Citadel and FW models so I assumed there was no distinction, the link you posted does differentiate between the two so I suppose the distinction still exists within their vernacular.

Why do you need FAQ? Because the rules aren't clear enough. I never said the rules were clear, only my interpretation of the rules and why I think what I think. AFAIK nobody has been able to point out where the rule of decency is stated to govern what models are and are not allowed. I allow all the good-faith proxies in the world in my games and would encourage others to do the same, I put zero value into how pretty the models on the battlefield look, they're all just ones and zeros to me while I'm playing. That doesn't mean you can come up to me and claim that you have every right to use your 25 mm Oblits in your game against me because they were legal at a point in time and represented a unit with the same name as a unit that currently exists, nope, nope, nope. Use your 25 mm Obliterators as Devastators and put them on 32 mm bases, but as modern Obliterators? It's worth just as little as placing a cardboard circle on the table to me.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Anyway, I agree with =Angel= that someone protesting the use of one of your models that has rules just because there's a shiny new £40 plastic version is a great way to avoid wasting several hours playing against a miserable no-fun player. You've dodged a bullet there and can save time unpacking your models.

You can say the same thing with crouching Knights or 25 mm Obliterators can't you? Don't be a git, but the same applies to Assault weapons and all the other ways RAW is unfun and better replaced with more personalized house rules.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Forgeworld is a citadel product.

Citation needed.

Contradictory citation, from GW's 2018-2019 Annual Report (pg3):

All of our plastic miniatures are branded as Citadel Miniatures, a mark with an unparalleled reputation for quality. It denotes both a style and level of detail that we apply to both our own worlds (Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer: Age of Sigmar) and those of others, e.g. Lord of the Rings.

Our resin miniatures, designed for more veteran customers, are branded as Forge World and are less widely available than their plastic counterparts.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Forgeworld is a citadel product.

Citation needed.

Contradictory citation, from GW's 2018-2019 Annual Report (pg3):

All of our plastic miniatures are branded as Citadel Miniatures, a mark with an unparalleled reputation for quality. It denotes both a style and level of detail that we apply to both our own worlds (Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer: Age of Sigmar) and those of others, e.g. Lord of the Rings.

Our resin miniatures, designed for more veteran customers, are branded as Forge World and are less widely available than their plastic counterparts.

I guess all my characters are FW characters then and thus not allowed in the team championship games /s

 vict0988 wrote:

You can say the same thing with crouching Knights or 25 mm Obliterators can't you? Don't be a git, but the same applies to Assault weapons and all the other ways RAW is unfun and better replaced with more personalized house rules.

TBH, I'm fine with almost any infantry on a 25mm base. The original obliterators were on 25mm, the game is set up for it. Diorama bases like the guard heavy weapons teams and the new hospitaller introduce problems for the miniatures that the characters they represent would not have - fitting through gaps and placing on terrain.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Anyway, I agree with =Angel= that someone protesting the use of one of your models that has rules just because there's a shiny new £40 plastic version is a great way to avoid wasting several hours playing against a miserable no-fun player. You've dodged a bullet there and can save time unpacking your models.

Yes, but people feel strongly the other way when you start talking about greater daemons.

@OP, In either event, the rules don't specify which model you have to use. So go nuts and use whatever you like. As long as what you are using is a reasonable representation then I've found that people don't mind.

JakeSiren wrote:

Yes, but people feel strongly the other way when you start talking about greater daemons.

Are there people that get annoyed if you don't have current plastic GD's?
I had a metal Lord of Change for years that would not stay together for love nor money (as i was an inexperienced modeller). i eventually upgraded to an Ultraforge Vrock- a much more visually powerful model that only had 3 pieces or so that slotted together like a charm. If anyone had a classic daemon and got it to stay together, I can't imagine someone taking issue.

If you plan on entering tournaments then I always worry about the possibility of getting matched up with TFG, who will relish any opportunity will to get an advantage over you by complaining to the judges about 'incorrect' models. The easiest way to avoid this is to keep everything as official as possible.

If you only plan to play casual games then it is unlikely that anyone will care unless you are trying to get away with something crazy.

 =Angel= wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Yes, but people feel strongly the other way when you start talking about greater daemons.

Are there people that get annoyed if you don't have current plastic GD's?
I had a metal Lord of Change for years that would not stay together for love nor money (as i was an inexperienced modeller). i eventually upgraded to an Ultraforge Vrock- a much more visually powerful model that only had 3 pieces or so that slotted together like a charm. If anyone had a classic daemon and got it to stay together, I can't imagine someone taking issue.

It depends on who you are playing and how retentive they are, but it can be contentious due to the size difference. I've seen comments from event organisers in my local area to know that they would prefer that people don't bring the older models - not that they would kick anyone out of an event if they brought one, but that they would consider it to almost be MFA.

Can I still use this?

Brilliant

Shooter wrote:
Can I still use this?

Yes! And it seems to be on the same size base than the current Calgar too!

Shooter wrote:
Can I still use this?

Hell, yes.

That is a freaking awesome question.

I just had a vision of the old Calgar with Kiss-like mechanical elevator shoes with the name "Calgar-Prime" stenciled on the base.

Kidding aside, as a nod of the head to "WYSIWYG" some method to convert to a taller version would be ideal using "true-scale" marine techniques.
I think I would like/approve it for those efforts alone (Rule of Cool I would claim).

It addresses using a GW model completely for the conversion so no-harm-no-foul there.

I suspect the "only" issue would be any wild rules laid down for tournaments that might get into stranger detail.

I find as long as some obvious effort went into it, and the model is readily recognized as what it represents, you are golden.

Shooter wrote:
Can I still use this?

Please do. That looks like an aura buff character to me.

edit: If I were using Primaris models, I personally wouldn't put the two beside each other. He's be small beside modern Mk2-7 armoured marines but not so much that it would break immersion.
I would prefer that the guy I was playing with did likewise but i wouldn't object to him suing this beside whatever miniatures he had.

If the logic is "old model, new model, makes no difference", then I hope people have been remembering to keep fielding the old resin/metal Greater Daemons.

On the other hand, the rules do allow battles between forces that contain units that could never have met, due to non-overlapping life spans or because the character changed and you're playing in an earlier time frame.

I am sure GW will eventually get around to FAQing it, to make things clear, which I personally expect to require that "old model uses old rules", like Index choices do.

Fictional wrote:
If the logic is "old model, new model, makes no difference", then I hope people have been remembering to keep fielding the old resin/metal Greater Daemons.

I hope so too. The only reason we're having this conversation is that GW made a narrative change with the new models. When the huge plastic bloodthirster was released, it wasn't labelled a BloodThirster ULTIMA, Khorne's new breed of warrior. It was just the new 'thirster model.

Fictional wrote:
On the other hand, the rules do allow battles between forces that contain units that could never have met, due to non-overlapping life spans or because the character changed and you're playing in an earlier time frame.

The rules don't disallow the Primaris or Tau being included in your M35 campaign setting, or the sisters from your Scouring. They don't prevent you fielding Abaddon and Creed in separate detachments. These are narrative contrivances that you'll have to work out with your friends.

Fictional wrote:
I am sure GW will eventually get around to FAQing it, to make things clear, which I personally expect to require that "old model uses old rules", like Index choices do.

Perhaps. but that will only work as long as they produce legacy rules for M31-M41 marines. As soon as they drop them, there'll be one set of rules for Calgar et al, and older models to use them with.

I'll ignore the silliness going on in this thread.

If you want to use a particular datasheet, you need a model to represent that datasheet, and that datasheet needs to be legal.

As has been noted, that needs to be current version of that datasheet. GW have been very particular with this - Different datasheets are different datasheets unless otherwise specified. Joe Blogs, Chapter Master, is different to Joe Blogs, Captain.

Ergo, if I have a model of Joe Blogs, Captain, I can't use that as Joe Blogs, Chapter Master [Aside from with my opponents consent] and vice-versa. If Joe Blogs, Captain is in the Index, then it's legal as per all GW direction on the matter.

The game system does not care in the slightest that there is a very similarly named datasheet, anymore than it cares about the similarities between an 'Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Team' and a 'Imperial Guard Infantry Squad'.

If you've got an Index Option for Joe Blogs on a Bike, and a model of Joe Blogs on a bike, then you can take Joe Blog on a Bike, with that model, from the index.

On the other hand, if Joe Blog, Captain, has a new non-index Datasheet, with different statistics, you have to use the current datasheet.
You could however, use the old model [Even if the new model has wildly differing stats] just the same as you can use an old Wraithguard to represent a new Wratihguard. They're all still wraithguard, even if my old Wraithguard once had an AV 10.
There are no rules regarding base size, so you don't even have to change that - Unless of course there's a house rule in place, which frequently says use whatever the current GW standard is.

GW still allows you to use modes in the Index that do not have rules in the Codex.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You could however, use the old model [Even if the new model has wildly differing stats] just the same as you can use an old Wraithguard to represent a new Wratihguard. They're all still wraithguard, even if my old Wraithguard once had an AV 10.

Most people would have a problem though if you tried using the original metal Avatar (the one that was about the same scale as a marine, even before they scaled up ithe avatar in metal and then again later in plastic) as an Avatar today. People would have to judge how big a difference in scale it is and decide whether to do it. What was shown here, with the modified base looked cool and I don't see most people have a problem with that.

I think I still have my three obliterators that came on their 1" base.

Could use them showing what they look like as infants?

 Talizvar wrote:
I think I still have my three obliterators that came on their 1" base.

Could use them showing what they look like as infants?

Include a modern on wtih them and say it's s unit with Mama Obliterator out with her babies?

Shooter wrote:
Can I still use this?

Sorry to go ot. But how does he get his head in that helmet?

 AndrewC wrote:

Shooter wrote:
Can I still use this?

Sorry to go ot. But how does he get his head in that helmet?

Looted technology from filty xenos; we've seen this shown before in Doctor Who stories both classic and new where the aliens are able to fit a much bigger head in a huiman head-looking disguise - the first two examples coming to mind are Scaroth, last of the Jagorath (from City of Death), and the Slitheen (from the first series of nu Who). Apparently the Imperium got hold of the head compression technology.