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.

First the background..
Space Orks have a special place in my heart. This is primarily because they were my first 40k army. The very first 40k figures that I ever purchased and painted was a squad of the old Kev Adams one piece casting ork models packaged in one of those horrible old "blister boxes". Also, the three RT era Ork books are amongst the finest and amusing 40k fluff that has been ever written by GW. My ork army is probably the most "pure" of all my armies, being 100% made up of older models. The basic troops themselves are a mix of the one piece Kev Adams sculpts and the original multi-part plastic Ork models from circa 1990. The rest of the army is of similar date and I take pride in the fact that I have not bought anything new for the army since 1994 or 95. (although those new "loota" models are admittedly tempting) For the longest time my Orks were my primary army for 40k, although they have not gotten much play of late. But with the advent of the new horribly effective Ork codex, I decided to blow the dust off the orks and give them a little exercise.

But the problem is that my Orks were my first 40k army. They come from an era in which my current painting style was in it's infancy and they look it. They quite simply have not aged well. I'm no top flight painter, but I simply do not like showing up in public to play with poorly painted models. So over the last couple of weeks I've been updating/repairing my Orks. The metal models have been stripped and the plastic models over-sprayed with primer. The result has been pretty satisfactory and I'm well along with it. This last Friday I took what I had done to our weekly "Old Fogey 40k Night" at one of the local stores for a test drive. I lost, mostly because the entire army and my best options are not done yet, but I enjoyed playing the "boyz" again. But here is were I get to the irritating part of my tale.

I don't know if it's my winning personality or what, but I seem to run into more than my fair share of anal retentive fools, drooling GW yes men, WYSIWYG fetishists, and other bufoons. Anyway, during Friday's game one of the bystanders made some comments about my army. He commented on how small the models in the army were and how that could be considered "exploitive" under the new line of sight rules. He even went so far as to say something along the lines of "I would have a real problem with having to face your army in a tournament!"

It is 100% true that my Space Ork models are small by today's standards. (the primary reason I probably won't add those loota models to the mix) The basic orks in the army are a head smaller than today's burly boyz and the fact that many are scupted in a hunched over ape like pose makes it even worse. The nobs and other character models are all only slightly (if at all) larger than the basic orks and are still (except for my shokk attakk gun, which I put on a larger base to keep it from falling over) on their original small round bases. I have one of the original ork battle wagon models and it's half the size of a current battlewagon kit. In fact it's closer to the size of the current trukk model.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c...tlewagon-h.htm
The worst offender (as stated by the clown in question) was my "killa kans". You see I have a number of the old ork "Tin boy" or robot models.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c...entshunz-h.htm
I thought these would make great "counts as" stand ins for killa kans and I mounted them on large round bases so that they would not be confused for infantry models. They are about the size of normal infantry models, and the "squat" model is even smaller.

Well, as is my way, I was polite with this fool but dismissed his comments and he soon walked off. I have no plans on ceasing using these older models any time soon.

But I am curious what the online 40k community thinks about this issue.

TR

Well, I can see why they would be narky about the KillaKan Tinboyz. There is a significant size difference there, and with the advent of True Line Of Sight, regardless of Base Size, it's understandable why they would ask you not to play them. Thankfully, if you built piles of scrap onto their bases, and plonked them on top of it, this could mitigate the TloS problem somewhat, to the point where only a complete arse would really have a problem.

But the rest? Well, tough on them. It's an old army, seemingly low on counts as (only going on what you said here) so where is the problem?

Only using the Tinboyz would upset me, and even then, not much, I'd just expect you to be generous when deciding if they were visible for shooting at and deciding on cover saves.

I've recieved the same "them's small" comments since 3rd edition came out. I'm finally upgrading all my 2nd edition plastic Goffs to the newer multipart gorillas. I'm going to keep all my RT metal Shoota boyz in place. I don't care what anyone says, there just cool miniatures.

Ork vehicles by their very nature are going to be of varied size and design. I feel the decision to use the tinboys as killa kans was an excellent idea.

As for other "counts as" issues, my orks are remarkably free of such things as compared to other armies I own. The "counts as" issues in the army are as follows:

-The aforementioned tinboyz
-I use heavy plasma gun models (far and away the most common heavy weapon ork model of the era due to it's inclusion in the plastic set) as "big shootas".
-I have an old Epicast "Gobsmasha" model I run as a looted wagon with a boomkannon.

Everything else is remarkably WYSIWYG compliant.

TR

It's a completely legal army. If someone's got a problem facing them they should buy some off eBay and make their own super-blasting invisible army.

TLoS works both ways.

I can't believe people are worried about a few mm of height.

I wouldn't take any notice.

Those are great models, and it's great that you found a use for them. I'm not as convinced as some people that model size has a great impact on game play, but it does make it easier to gain "hull down", and completely get out of LOS. It also makes it harder for models behind it to gain hull down.

I probably wouldn't have any issues if we played, unless you tried to really work the model size to your advantage, but I wouldn't necessarily castigate a person that didn't like you using them.

The tinboys would be a little odd, if they're really not much bigger than a boy.

TLoS aside, I just don't think they'd look the part of a S10, Av11 vehicle.

The battlewagon might look off too, but I'd have to see it to judge, and I got a 404 from the link.

As someone with a large RT-era Ork army, I can definitely empathize. The old Warbuggies are tiny by "modern" standard. More like WarGoCarts!

That said, I would have a bit of an issue with using Tinboyz as Killer Kans. I don't have the newest OrkDex, but I can't help but wonder if there wasn't a better use for them. Maybe 'Ardboyz, or Cyborks, or their equivalents, if they still exist...

The old small "eggs on legs" Ork Dreads make perfect Killer Kans (with the Super Attach Onslaughter Dreads as full-up Dreads). But the Tinboyz really are infantry scale, not light walker scale.

Would I claim that using Tinboyz as Killer Kans is exploiting the rules? No. Just that as a "counts as" call, it's not one I personally think works very well.

As for the rest? Tell 'em to piss off (but more politely!). They're "official" GW models. Aside from the possible case of the Tinboyz, they're reflecting -basically- what they were sculpted to be.

It's not your fault that newer GW models have been hitting the juice like A-Rod!

Vale,

JohnS

Oops...looks like the links in the original post are bad. These should work:

Battlewagon:
http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2088orkbattlewagon-h.htm

Tinboyz:
http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2067orkinventshunz-h.htm

TR

There's nothing exploitative abouting using the old Kev Adams Orks.

However, I think that the old Battlewagon would be more appropriate as a Trukk these days; Battlewagons have gotten bigger in the background, and "trukks" didn't exist when the old BW was made. The tinboyz would be better as cyborks or something, IMO.

Pariah Press wrote: There's nothing exploitative abouting using the old Kev Adams Orks.

However, I think that the old Battlewagon would be more appropriate as a Trukk these days; Battlewagons have gotten bigger in the background, and "trukks" didn't exist when the old BW was made. The tinboyz would be better as cyborks or something, IMO.

Yeah, forgot to say, my old style Battewagon now counts as a Trukk and my converted one as a Looted Wagon. No longer big enough to be a Battlewagon, IMO.

The tinboyz really are a tad inappropriate to use as "killa kanz", being as how they are really infantry on 25mm bases. I would say they would be better used as cyborks or ardboyz. I can understand how someone may be a little miffed about that. Of course, being so small, they don't really block LOS to anything either, and probably have a hard time getting LOS themselves.

My feelings about WYSIWYG are similar. I remember playing 40k when half my army was a proxy for something else, and not really having anybody care. I've played entire games of WHFB using nothing but pieces of cardboard cut to the correct sizes, on both sides.

The tinboyz do not make good killa kans, I can see the issues with that, particular with the new TLoS rules. In a tournament I'd be hesitant to play against you, but for friendly play, who cares? It's a game involving little army men!

The battlewagon would be fine as a battlewagon, or a trukk, or whatever. GW calls it a battlewagon, your opponents can go pound sand.

The comments about the boyz are outrageous! They are exactly what they are, you didn't make them like that, I fail to see how anybody could have an issue with them.

The tinboyz really are a tad inappropriate to use as "killa kanz", being as how they are really infantry on 25mm bases.

Incorrect.
They have never been "just infantry". When they first apeared, they were vehicle models in the same class as the long defunct Imperial robots.

As for their 25mm round bases, that's why I remounted them on large bases: so they would not be confused with infantry models.

In a tournament I'd be hesitant to play against you, but for friendly play, who cares?

Actually in a tourny, unless you could convince the organizer to pull my army (a jerk move if there ever was one), that is the one enviorment were one would HAVE to simply accept the models.

TR

Not being rude, but nice as the models not be, in the capacity of Killakans, do they not look, well a little daft? They are awfully small after all.

As for Tournies, I think your army probably would get pulled, as there is no real reason for you to use such mis-scaled models. Whether or not there is an intention to abuse rules or whatever would be largely irrelevant.

On a related side note. True line of sight is about the stupidest addition to 40k there has ever been, the only game gw has produced which TLOS was fair was inquisitor, a game almost twice the scale.

Look heres my land raider, which can hold ten space marines in it...supposedly...maybe...if they were still in their sprue. Apart from that it's perfect scale for tlos...right?

As long as all Land Raiders are the same dimensions, yes. Then everyone is playing to the same scale and all is well, hence my suggestion above of simply fielding the far smaller Tinboyz on piles of rubble to make up the deficit...

Wouldn't a certain level of rule interpretation and player agreement be easier and more in the spirit of the game. Then mucking around with making your models perfect for the current ruleset.

I thinkusing old models is great, and I know the feeling of how painting does improve as you go on.

I think the most important thing is probably to make sure your opponent can identify whats arrayed against him, and not need to keep asking.

I'll have to be honest I think the dimensions of the tinbotz are so far away from the dimensions of the kan models I'd think it would be slightly wrong.

Do not put your miniatures in your anus.

I'd love to play against your army and see some of the older models you have, I have a Genestealer Cult with loads of the old metal hybrids in it from the late 1980's!

However, an official GW UK tournament ruling a few years ago ruled that models used must be from the current range and available to buy. I thought this sucked myself, as I had to remove my models to satisfy the pratt I was playing against. This was apparently to prevent any confusion as to what models i was fielding to my opponents. I continued to use them in other games after explaining what they where, as I did to the pratt who complianed, but seeing as the letter of the law enabled him to win the game, he got them removed.

Not sure if this rule is still in existance.

Trench-Raider wrote:

The tinboyz really are a tad inappropriate to use as "killa kanz", being as how they are really infantry on 25mm bases.

Incorrect.
They have never been "just infantry". When they first apeared, they were vehicle models in the same class as the long defunct Imperial robots.

Actually the robots were sort of in a league of their own, not really infantry, not really vehicles, like tanks, more like bikes. The models themselves are very much infantry, ala terminators, or the like.

In a tournament I'd be hesitant to play against you, but for friendly play, who cares?

Actually in a tourny, unless you could convince the organizer to pull my army (a jerk move if there ever was one), that is the one enviorment were one would HAVE to simply accept the models.

TR

TheSecretSquig wrote:I'd love to play against your army and see some of the older models you have, I have a Genestealer Cult with loads of the old metal hybrids in it from the late 1980's!

However, an official GW UK tournament ruling a few years ago ruled that models used must be from the current range and available to buy. I thought this sucked myself, as I had to remove my models to satisfy the pratt I was playing against.

Was that really the rule? That sounds highly unfair. I mean I have an old marine army I probably wouldn't be able to field now by those rules, even though they're barely different from today's marines. Not that I have any desire to enter a torunament however.

What were, or still are, the rules on conversions, sculpts and scratch builds in that case then?

Hollismason wrote:Do not put your miniatures in your anus.

Please stop spamming (ie, making pointless posts in a thread).

Thank you.

whatwhat wrote:What were, or still are, the rules on conversions, sculpts and scratch builds in that case then?

At least in the US Grand Tournaments:

"Conversions, WYSIWYG, and “Counts As”
Non-Citadel miniatures are not allowed in the Grand Tournament and will be removed in the same way as unpainted miniatures.

Conversions must begin as Citadel miniatures and contain a majority of Citadel components. All other models will be removed from the table. They must be of the appropriate type for the troops they represent and comply with the “Counts As” rule below."

So, I would think strictly speaking, as sculpts and scratch builds aren't Citadel Miniatures, they wouldn't be allowed(which sucks, as I have several scratch built Ork dreads I'd want to use). However, actually finding an opponent or Judge that would force you to pull a scratch build model might be difficult. As for sculpts(I assume fully sculpted and not Green Stuff over existing models), that may be a different story, but probably only if significantly apparent it's not a converted GW model. Again, I'm not sure and may depend on what Judge you get, so it's probably best not to risk a full sculpt.

As for Tournies, I think your army probably would get pulled, as there is no real reason for you to use such mis-scaled models.

Says the guy who has stated many times that he avoids the tourny scene....

Was that really the rule? That sounds highly unfair.

Yes it was.
It lasted about six months or so back when the change over to 3rd edition occured and yes it truely sucked. But there was such an outcry that they ditched the rule. There have been rumors in the years since that it was going to return, but nothing solid.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:there was such an outcry that they ditched the rule. TR

Too right, seems like a shameless attempt to sell more models to me.

Trench-Raider wrote:My ork army is probably the most "pure" of all my armies, being 100% made up of older models.

Anyway, during Friday's game one of the bystanders made some comments about my army. He commented on how small the models in the army were and how that could be considered "exploitive" under the new line of sight rules. He even went so far as to say something along the lines of "I would have a real problem with having to face your army in a tournament!"

Bravo for fielding a mass of the "old" stuff!

Anyhow, you're playing an all-GW / all-Citadel army and that's all that matters. If he has a problem with that, he can go pound sand.

Or buy you a 5E super-sized Ork army.

I've encountered somewhat similar stupidity with people complaining about base sizes and such (what? Wraithlords aren't based on 40mm square bases, Terminators aren't on 25mm slottabases?) Screw them. Those models are originals and they're just fine the way they are.

If GW isn't going to constantly update my models for me, then the older models remain just as legal as they always were.

That said, based on their size, your Tinboyz are probably best represented as Cyborks or some other flavor of Boyz on 25mm bases. Having an AV in the good old days doesn't mean they're Kans - just compare with Wraithguard which used to be AV10 - now they're back to being ordinary infantry with a T stat.
____

Full disclosure: my Eldar are the original 2E models, and my Guard are the 2E Tallarns, so I have a similar soft spot for the old stuff. My CSM were based on the 2E plastics but I traded them away.

There were 4 limbed and 2 limbed old ork dreads, it was the difference between these that started the divergence between Dreds and Kans, I think using those for cans and dreds now would be most suited and keep the aesthetic of your army intact. You can pick them up for very little on ebay.

The tinboyz would be too small imo for kan stand-ins.