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.

Is:

All models that have a GW figure should use the original GW figure for all in-game purposes, irregardless of conversion.

All models without a GW figure should be determined before mission selection begins as to what GW model on hand will 'counts as' for that type of model.

But no...

Stelek wrote:All models that have a GW figure should use the original GW figure for all in-game purposes, irregardless of conversion.

The 'original' GW figure?

So the Avatar, for example, should use the stubby little Rogue Trader model for all game interaction purposes?

(And I would certainly hope to never see 'irregardless' in a GW publication...)


It's a nice idea, but a pain to implement. Using anything other than the actual model that's on the table is a nuisance.

"Yeah, I can't actually see your Guardsman, but I could if he was posed like this..."

Nope, sorry, too hard. The actual problems caused by conversion, in most cases, are really quite minor. Easier to just use what you've got and control abusive modeling off the table.

Stelek wrote:
All models that have a GW figure should use the original GW figure for all in-game purposes, regardless of conversion.

So... you're saying no 'count as' armies?

But he's right, there should be mention of using appropriate models.

I'm with you on this, they should have presented guidelines in the rulebook about dealing with coverted models.

Although in that case they also could have presented it along with the option to just play with the models 'as is' for a friendly game where both players know their opponent hasn't converted their models to get an advantage.

while I think better guidlines would have been nice I think outright banning conversions and proxies would be lame. LAME. PP does something similar and it works fine for their system but GW games have a niche in the openess of the system to creativity. Locally there are a number of people who have really nice proxy armies that would be hosed by this. Hell Stelek, your lizardman orks army would be hosed by this kind of rule.

For friendly games, is it even an issue? Don't play someone who willfully takes advantage of the rules via modelling. I have no problem walking away from a game if someone is an ass.

For tournament games, isn't a TO perfectly capable of ruling in these situations? I mean, by all means Stelek, have such a rule at the tournaments you run. Why do you need GW to hold your hand here?

I know there's a history of this at GTs but to me that is an issue with the people running the thing then the rules. If they don't address this then people will complain and I'm sure a change will be made. It does seem like Dave T and company are on the ball and would consider constructive feedback on this kind of thing, now rather then later.

40k could certainly do with one of those base size charts like fantasy.

Hmmm I wasn't proposing a rule.

Why was this topic moved?

Sigh.

That's fine. I have an original Land Raider.



BYE

Stelek wrote:Hmmm I wasn't proposing a rule.

Why was this topic moved?

Sigh.

Because you said "This is the missing rule from 5th" and then went on to state a new rule, thus proposing it.

No count as, atleast 3 colors on your models.

(My local GW)

on 40k radio they talked about a converted firewarrior army, his boradsides where just fire warriors manning the guns and had half the profile of the original. I think its a good IDEA but to actually implament it?

those damn hex bases barely hold a pewter speeder. I'm using the current ones.

wash-away wrote:on 40k radio they talked about a converted firewarrior army, his boradsides where just fire warriors manning the guns and had half the profile of the original. I think its a good IDEA but to actually implament it?

Facing that "counts as" army they discussed, I'd go with the option one panelist put forth (paraphrasing):

You know, THAT guy. Don't play with that douche. Wait, I can't say douche on the radio?

Best line of the show, BTW.