(40K) Abandoned Models?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up space
on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank. I
emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I was told
that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a 'counts as
Balisk', and I can't scratch convert it to a Chimera (unless I purchase $20
worth of sprues first).

Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
will make a list.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Dwight Robinson wrote:

> I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up space
> on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank. I
> emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I was told
> that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a 'counts as
> Balisk', and I can't scratch convert it to a Chimera (unless I purchase $20
> worth of sprues first).
>
> Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
> many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
> will make a list.
>
>

The recent White Dwarf with the IG Armored Company list has rules for a
Griffon. Obviously the troll doesn't read the company rag.

 

[z80]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

I'll likely be using Starship Troopers minis (unless I can find better)
for a wargame I've got in the works. Trouble is, I'm not sure what else
I could use. I was going to use MC:Warzone! minis, but their piss-poor
armor units prompted a change of mind.

Are there any remotely 40K-esque mini lines that /don't/ cost $10 per
model and $35+ per vehicle?

-----------
"I've got you figured out. You're only in this for the text." -RGMW
Outtakes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up space
>on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank. I
>emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I was told
>that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a 'counts as
>Balisk',

Why not?

>Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats,

Ouch.

>this got me wondering how
>many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
>will make a list.

Fewer than you might think - most of them dating back to the Squat era
and RT in general, when GW was experimenting with the game system to
see what worked and what didn't. From this they tossed the Squats,
Slann, Jokaero, Zoats, various unaffiliated monsters (Ambull et. al. -
not sure how many of these actually had models), Imperial Guard land
speeders and bikes and models with conversion beamers and Space Marines
with shuriken catapults to name those I can remember.

Over the last edition or so the Griffon, Eldar Harlequins, Termagants
with spike rifles and those with stranglewebs have been lost from the
official books, but all have since turned up with unofficial rules on
GW's website and in the latter case in an article on Tyranid
kill-teams. Models such as Eldar Guardians with lasguns, Eldar Rangers
with weapons other than shuriken pistols and longrifles, Ork pulsa
rokkits and shokk attack guns, Warlocks with force rods and Assault
Marines with power weapons have joined the 'counts as' crowd.

WFB has seen fewer changes - all the armies are still there, plus a
couple of new ones, although the old-style Slann have been replaced
with ones so different they can't really be used any more (and placed
in the Lizardmen list). Mercenary regiments come and go, but GW has
been good about supporting all the ones released in the last two
editions with current rules, and covering such oddballs as the Halfling
Hotpot and Dwarfs with spears in the process. GW also has a habit of
putting rules on its website for discontinued special characters (and
is increasingly producing new models for or rereleasing these
characters with rules in official publications), and while it's looking
very dated now with no sign of an imminent update, there is a Chaos
Dwarf army list. There aren't many WFB 'count as' models, but old
mummies can serve as Tomb Kings while spectres could be Banshees or
Ethereal Hosts, and Reiksguard can stand in for Swordsmen, Teutogen
Guard or Greatswords depending on armament. Losses I can think of
include the Bretonnian organ gun (the cannon can conceivably be used as
a Dogs of War cannon), the Fimir, the Skaven Doomwheel and Verminlord,
Chaos Thugs with pistols and the old (3rd Ed.) Chaos Dwarf artillery.
GW seems to be making an effort to keep everything around from 4th Ed.
onwards in the game somehow, however.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> For the most part GW hasn't 'abandon' a lot of its model kits -
>older minis yes, model kits no. It's simply found new ways to hose
>gamers out of ever more money (GW = Gouging Wargamers) buy re-issuing
>new versions of the kits in a slightly larger scale and/or making them
>available as Forgeworld resin kits (with highly inflated prices in the
>majority of cases). They did pretty much kill of the entire 'Squats'
>line (amazing they were all eaten by the Tyranids). A lot of the older
>'Archives' metal minis are gone (like the cool old chaos beastmen, etc.)
>Examples in 40K include IG & Marines on jet bikes, no IG with jet packs,
>no eldar with IG las-guns, no marines with Eldar shuriken guns, etc. It
>tends to be more the 'special character' types (expensive single minis)
>that get axed a lot - examples include the Tyranid 'Red Terror' & 'Old
>One Eye' carnifex, as well as the Cypher IG/Chaos character to name a
>few.

Cypher got rules in White Dwarf during the EoT campaign, and the
Tyranid 'special characters' can both be made - more or less - using
the current rules (Ravener with 2 x scything talons, Carnifex with
Regeneration). Most other special characters can simply be used as
non-special characters (e.g. Captain Chenkov and Al'Rahem, who I
believe are now sold as bog-standard captains for their respective
regiments).

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Dwight Robinson" <dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca> wrote in message
news:Rv-dnVObJphblIbeRVn-hA@rogers.com...
>I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up space
>on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank. I
>emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I was told
>that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a 'counts as
>Balisk', and I can't scratch convert it to a Chimera (unless I purchase $20
>worth of sprues first).

PV: 75
type: tank, open-topped
FA 12 / SA 10 / RA 10
BS 3

weapons: heavy mortar and hull-mounted heavy bolter.

heavy mortar: range G12-48, strength 6, AP 4, ordnance 1 blast

can be upgraded with any of the following:
smoke shells (+5) - provides a friendly unit within range with a smoke
screen until the end of the next enemy turn. infantry receive a 5+ cover
save; vehicles are affected as if they had used smoke launchers. the unit
cannot fire through the smoke screen itself.
illumination shells (+5) - friendly units can re-roll night fighting
targeting distances for the rest of the shooting phase. enemy units gain
the same benefit in the subsequent turn.
siege shells (+10) - use the small blast template but still count as
ordnance in all other respects. armour penetration of 2D6+6 vs
bunkers/structures
infernus shells (+10) - same as standard fire, except that any infantry unit
hit must make a fall back move.

upgrades: armored crew compartment, camo netting, extra armor, HK missile,
improved comms, mine sweeper, pintle-mounted storm bolter / heavy stubber,
rough terrain modification, searchlight, track guards, smoke launchers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <Rv-dnVObJphblIbeRVn-hA@rogers.com>, Dwight Robinson,
dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up space
> on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank. I
> emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it.

While not an unreasonable course of action, you do realize you're
asking low paid sales weenies - i.e. a bunch of tools who's sole purpose
is to sell you more models when the ones you have are just fine - for
advice?

> I was told
> that the rules for it are no longer valid,

I.e. buy more of our over-priced model kits - or else! (Or else
you'll get wise and switch to using low cost alternatives, or simply
playing another minis game all together. I hear Starship Troops RPG &
Minis game is good (not to mention taking a bite out of GW's profits.)

In this case either the tool err.. troll was ignorant of the words
'Forgeworld & imperial armor codex' - or he was just plain being a tool.

> you can't use it as a 'counts as Balisk',

Fine - then use it as a 'counts as a Griffon'. (I've got one of
those Griffon kits as well.) Just because GW 'deleted' that kit from
their inventory, it didn't magically erase the copy of the rules I have
for said vehicle from my stuff. Next up...

And of course there's always looking at the Forgeworld line of kits...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/IMPERIAL_GUARD_TANKS.html

Gee, what do I behold when I look at the link to Imperial Guard Tanks?

Why look --> Kits like: 'Imperial Bombard' - which looks much like a
griffon only heavier. Or the 'Medusa' vehicle... And LOW & BEHOLD!
There on the very same page is 'IMPERIAL GRIFFON HEAVY MORTAR CARRIER'.

What this means is that the rules for the griffon were removed from the
regular IG codex, and the model was 'magically' moved over to the
(usually insanely) more expensive Forgeworld range of model kits. In
this case the FW Griffon will run you a meager $70 US/ $83 CA dollars.
The good news is that 'new version' of the Griffon rules are now in the
'Imperial Armor' Codex (codex #1 - 80 pages) - not to be confused with
the larger 'Imperial Armor Volume 1 (the 280 page hardback codex that
goes for a price only slightly higher than say - the gross domestic
product of Spain.) This means if you look around on Ebay you'll see
copys of the smaller codex for sale sporadically. You could also ask
around and see if any of your friends have a copy and would let you look
at the rules for the griffon. In short - if you look around, you can
come up with a copy of the rules and not spend a boat-load of cash on
more GW stuff when you don't need to when the model you've got is just
fine. The stuff from the 'Forgeworld' line is supposed to be
'opponent's permission only' - but most decent players wouldn't care a
bit if you used an old 2nd/3rd Griffon kit as <gasp!> a Griffon with the
rules from FW or even the older codex rules.

> and I can't scratch convert it to a Chimera (unless I purchase $20
> worth of sprues first).

Screw that! (It sounds more and more like the tool you spoke to
was simply trying to part you from more of your money instead of being
helpful.) You're right, with a bit of talent you could scratch convert
it for a lot less than $20 worth of sprues. In fact if you're patient,
you can snag a complete Chimera kit off of ebay for about that price -
or if you're not patient, then you can try www.gc-minis.com for a
standard 30 - 35% discount on all GW standard (non-forgeworld) items.
Since Great Canadian is apparently based out of your own country, it
should work out well on postage.

>
> Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
> many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
> will make a list.

For the most part GW hasn't 'abandon' a lot of its model kits -
older minis yes, model kits no. It's simply found new ways to hose
gamers out of ever more money (GW = Gouging Wargamers) buy re-issuing
new versions of the kits in a slightly larger scale and/or making them
available as Forgeworld resin kits (with highly inflated prices in the
majority of cases). They did pretty much kill of the entire 'Squats'
line (amazing they were all eaten by the Tyranids). A lot of the older
'Archives' metal minis are gone (like the cool old chaos beastmen, etc.)
Examples in 40K include IG & Marines on jet bikes, no IG with jet packs,
no eldar with IG las-guns, no marines with Eldar shuriken guns, etc. It
tends to be more the 'special character' types (expensive single minis)
that get axed a lot - examples include the Tyranid 'Red Terror' & 'Old
One Eye' carnifex, as well as the Cypher IG/Chaos character to name a
few.

Hope that helps,

Myrmidon


--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."

-- Moramarth

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Estarriol]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

If you hunt around on the GW website you will find a download for the
Imperial Guard Armoured Company, this has the stats and rules for the
Griffon.

--
estarriol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <dffctr$oh6$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>, estarriol,
estarriol@blueyonder.jeansNtshirt.co.uk Varfed out the following in Timo
speak...
> If you hunt around on the GW website you will find a download for the
> Imperial Guard Armoured Company, this has the stats and rules for the
> Griffon.

It's got to be the UK site, it's harder than hell trying to find
anything on the US site. I love how none of the trolls bothered to tell
this guy he didn't need to shell out money or otherwise go without the
use of the kit in his games.

Myrmidon

--
GW games. Common sense not included.

--SupAmaN

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> Over the last edition or so the Griffon, Eldar Harlequins, Termagants
> with spike rifles and those with stranglewebs have been lost from the
>> official books, but all have since turned up with unofficial rules on
>> GW's website.
>
>
>The Griffon & Termagants at least are labelled 'chapter approved' and so are
>official rules. I don't know about the Harlequins.

Originally they were a Citadel Journal article, non-Chapter Approved.
They were given official status during the Eye of Terror campaign, but
I think only for the purposes of that campaign (and the updates, such
as the Harlequin Wraithlord, didn't get into the 'Chapter Approved'
version).

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Thanks, but I have the rule. My concern was that the GW rule trolls told me
I couldn't use the model in tournaments or to play in 'GW approved' stores.

Dwight

"Doctor Rock" <malafex@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lTESe.11712$hv5.1105@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Dwight Robinson" <dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:Rv-dnVObJphblIbeRVn-hA@rogers.com...
>>I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up
>>space on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon
>>tank. I emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I
>>was told that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a
>>'counts as Balisk', and I can't scratch convert it to a Chimera (unless I
>>purchase $20 worth of sprues first).
>
> PV: 75
> type: tank, open-topped
> FA 12 / SA 10 / RA 10
> BS 3
>
> weapons: heavy mortar and hull-mounted heavy bolter.
>
> heavy mortar: range G12-48, strength 6, AP 4, ordnance 1 blast
>
> can be upgraded with any of the following:
> smoke shells (+5) - provides a friendly unit within range with a smoke
> screen until the end of the next enemy turn. infantry receive a 5+ cover
> save; vehicles are affected as if they had used smoke launchers. the unit
> cannot fire through the smoke screen itself.
> illumination shells (+5) - friendly units can re-roll night fighting
> targeting distances for the rest of the shooting phase. enemy units gain
> the same benefit in the subsequent turn.
> siege shells (+10) - use the small blast template but still count as
> ordnance in all other respects. armour penetration of 2D6+6 vs
> bunkers/structures
> infernus shells (+10) - same as standard fire, except that any infantry
> unit hit must make a fall back move.
>
> upgrades: armored crew compartment, camo netting, extra armor, HK missile,
> improved comms, mine sweeper, pintle-mounted storm bolter / heavy stubber,
> rough terrain modification, searchlight, track guards, smoke launchers
>

 

[Harb]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> Over the last edition or so the Griffon, Eldar Harlequins, Termagants
> with spike rifles and those with stranglewebs have been lost from the
> official books, but all have since turned up with unofficial rules on
> GW's website.

The Griffon & Termagants at least are labelled 'chapter approved' and so are
official rules. I don't know about the Harlequins.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Dwight Robinson entered the world pub
known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> Thanks, but I have the rule. My concern was that the GW rule trolls told me
> I couldn't use the model in tournaments or to play in 'GW approved' stores.
>
> Dwight
>
99.9999% of the information you get from the rules tools is incorrect. You
would think that they would be required to actually read the rules prior to
giving out decisions.

Oh and you will fins that life on RGMW is a whole lot easier if you don't
top post. If you don't know what top posting is, then the short version is
when you post a reply above the message body (like you did to Doc Rock)
instead of below (as I did to you).

--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>In the UK, the answers they've given are in fact correct. UK GT rules - no
>FW rules, no CA, nothing that isn't in a Codex (and even then they have
>restrictions). You cannot use a Griffon in the UK GT, nor any other GW run
>tournament. They also don't allow them to be used in most stores - for some
>reason a lot of GW managers don't allow FW rules or models to be used
>because they apparently "detract from the GW hobby by confusing new gamers".

So presumably any model not presently sold by GW will also be banned
(such as older versions of current models) for the same reason?

In any case, there was no reason for them to drop the Griffon from the
Codex at all - it was a good little tank and had a serviceable model.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Jim wrote on Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:05:50 GMT:

> It was a cold day in September when Dwight Robinson entered the world pub
> known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
>
>> Thanks, but I have the rule. My concern was that the GW rule trolls told
>> me I couldn't use the model in tournaments or to play in 'GW approved'
>> stores.
>>
>> Dwight
>>
> 99.9999% of the information you get from the rules tools is incorrect. You
> would think that they would be required to actually read the rules prior
> to giving out decisions.

In the UK, the answers they've given are in fact correct. UK GT rules - no
FW rules, no CA, nothing that isn't in a Codex (and even then they have
restrictions). You cannot use a Griffon in the UK GT, nor any other GW run
tournament. They also don't allow them to be used in most stores - for some
reason a lot of GW managers don't allow FW rules or models to be used
because they apparently "detract from the GW hobby by confusing new gamers".
Bloody stupid considering FW are a GW subsidiary, but then again this is GW
we're talking about ... next they'll be preventing people playing using
non-sanctioned colour schemes.

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Spack wrote to Jim M on Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:28:32 +0100:

> Jim wrote on Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:05:50 GMT:
>
>> It was a cold day in September when Dwight Robinson entered the world pub
>> known as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
>>
>>> Thanks, but I have the rule. My concern was that the GW rule trolls
>>> told me I couldn't use the model in tournaments or to play in 'GW
>>> approved' stores.
>>>
>>> Dwight
>>>
>> 99.9999% of the information you get from the rules tools is incorrect.
>> You would think that they would be required to actually read the rules
>> prior to giving out decisions.
>
> In the UK, the answers they've given are in fact correct. UK GT rules - no

I re-read that after posting and realised it should state "the answers
they've given to Dwight regarding the Griffon and it's legality in
tournaments and stores", I did not mean to imply that all answers they give
out are correct. Big L will be skating to work the day that happens.

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
>
> It's all part of GW's 'Improved Customer Service' - GW used to include
> full color cards with full vehicle stats and rules in every model kit,
> but that was to handy. (Doubtless all the paying customers complained
> about this.) Now everyone can pay for the model, *AND* buy a codex.
> And while you're shelling out the big bucks - how about buying 'Codex
> Errata' too? Err... Chapter Approved I mean. On the plus side, GW's
> efficiency has improved - these days their prices go up like clock work.

Sorry to interrupt your standard rant, but you do know that the actual
'errata' errata is available for download from their website, don't you?
Pretty much for free.

And it's not like you could use any of the other troops without a codex,
vehicles aren't anything special in that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125956015.540332.158580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> In any case, there was no reason for them to drop the Griffon from the
> Codex at all

as I recall, it was another shelf space casualty of the
third-main-game-system reorganization. presumably it didn't sell very well
compared to the basilisk - in the latest edition, without the weapon
flexibility and speed advantage it enjoyed when it was first released, it
doesn't compare very favorably any more.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:
> <pbowles@aol.com> wrote ...
>>In any case, there was no reason for them to drop the Griffon from the
>>Codex at all

Wrong.

> as I recall, it was another shelf space casualty of the
> third-main-game-system reorganization.

I'll bet, if one were to really dig in to the Griffon, one would find
that GW's current production cost / sales pricing makes it an unsalable
model.

The Griffon has a *lot* of expensive metal, whereas the Basilisk sprues
can be produced for mere pennies.

As GW can't charge more than $5 USD premium for a Griffon, it made more
sense to cancel the model as a standard offering, and hike up the Bitz
costs via MO or push sales to FW.

So there is a reason: simple economics.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[BlackHeart]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:47:00 -0400, "Dwight Robinson"
<dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca> wrote:


>Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
>many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
>will make a list.
>

well... look at it like this:

look at your catalog, if the model is decent looking and not a blatant
attamept to market to the children, it's either discontinued, or will
be shortly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Spack <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote:
> we're talking about ... next they'll be preventing people playing using
> non-sanctioned colour schemes.

Are you sure this hasn't already happened? I seem to recall a rather ticked
off Ork WFB player about 12 years ago. It seems he'd painted his Orks
brown, rather than green, and was told he couldn't use them.

Zane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when Blackheart entered the world pub known
as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:47:00 -0400, "Dwight Robinson"
> <dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
> >many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
> >will make a list.
> >
>
> well... look at it like this:
>
> look at your catalog, if the model is decent looking and not a blatant
> attamept to market to the children, it's either discontinued, or will
> be shortly.
>
>
that's nearly out-take worthy just for the spelling alone!
--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Harb" <irish_meadow@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6USe.4115$ix3.3565@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Actually, official 4th edition stats for the Red Terror and Old One Eye
> have been released on the Tyranid section of the UK website.
>
> The points costs have changed a little, but they're still very legal.
>

http://uk.games-workshop.com/tyranids/special-characters/1/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

<pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125873840.215462.89400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I decided to assemble the Imperial Guard army that has been taking up
> >space
>>on my shelf for the past few years. Among the models is a Griffon tank.
>>I
>>emailed Games Workshop rules trolls to see how I could use it. I was told
>>that the rules for it are no longer valid, you can't use it as a 'counts
>>as
>>Balisk',
>
> Why not?
Ask a stupid question, get ...

Presumably under WYSIWYG, a griffon must be a griffon and a basilisk is a
basilisk. Of course, if the griffon has no official rules, it cannot
possibly be a griffon, can it? So you are left with a big gun on a chimera
chassis, which must be a?


If you really need to, stick a tube in the barrel, (preferably one that is
far, far too long, like three times the length of the chassis), and invite
everyone to admire your "heavily converted local pattern
griffon/bombard/basilisk/hydra/vanquisher/vindicator", that you carefully
built out of a chimera chassis, and some bits that you happened to have
lying around. Paint "basilisk" on the front, sides, and rear if you have
to. Enter it for golden daemon, and wait for it to appear in WD. Easy.

 

[BlackHeart]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 03:09:56 GMT, Jim M <hnjcomics@gmail.com> wrote:

>It was a cold day in September when Blackheart entered the world pub known
>as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
>
>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:47:00 -0400, "Dwight Robinson"
>> <dwirobin@enoreo.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Cut to the chase. As my first army was Squats, this got me wondering how
>> >many different models (or lines) GW has abandoned. Please respond and I
>> >will make a list.
>> >
>>
>> well... look at it like this:
>>
>> look at your catalog, if the model is decent looking and not a blatant
>> attamept to market to the children, it's either discontinued, or will
>> be shortly.
>>
>>
>that's nearly out-take worthy just for the spelling alone!


meh... I blame it on the World Of Warcraft forums...