I can't see how anyone could legitimately complain. It's not a proxy or "counts as". It is what it is...and my the letter of the rules it's still legal. Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )
However, suitably painted, it could make a kick arse Phoenix Lord counts as, or perhaps even a highly stylised Autarch.
Much like your question about the Tinboyz, it's a matter of comparing to the new model, and seeing if it could perhaps represent something else in the list better (I think I suggested 'Ard Boyz for the Tinboyz, mixed into the unit for sake of avoiding repetition) than being a WYSIWYG Nazi.
Doc, this one is not even in the same neighborhood as the tinboy/killer kan thing. That was a "counts as" issue. This is an older version of an existing model that depicts a current unit choice. It's 100% legal.
If...and it's a big if..I run this thing I will at least base it on a large round.
Also technically I think the base size has to be the same or larger than what is included in the current kit. So yeah the model would be 100% legal but would be running around on a medium base.
The trouble is though, if going in for Competitive play (I have no idea if thats your bag) then someone could take exception to it.
And they could also get bent as they would not have a leg to stand on rules-wise. Someone on the mirror post I made on another site made a great point. You can't just ban an older miniature from being used for what it was designed to be just because it happens to be a bit smaller than the current example. For example the old "beakie" marines are almost a head smaller than the current examples, yet no one objects to their use...and correctly so.
I would hope that all but the most anal tourny munchkin would look at the context of the army (my work in progress Eldar are with the excetion of the tanks all RT and 2nd edition models) before having a stroke.
And yes, I do play the occasional tourny, but I'm far more of a casual player.
In Casual Play, I would consider you a bit of a douche if doing it deliberately, but if you had that model from way back when, I'd not begrudge you for it. Then I'd get on with my life.
In Competitive play I'd shake your hand for being a smart bastard. It's a nice and totally legal tactic (at GW Tournaments anyway, your LFGS might have the tournament rules saying most recent models only for all I know). Then I'd be an epic Chipmunk and rate you 0 for everything.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The trouble is though, if going in for Competitive play (I have no idea if thats your bag) then someone could take exception to it.
People can take exception to anything that may feel like.
But that doesnt make it illegal. Bitch, moan, throw yourself on the ground and have a full blown tantrum, its still a legal model.
If I brought that to a tourney and some douchewad brought a judge over to disqualify me or the model, I would literally laugh at the TFG as the judge tells him that is legal model and to STFU.
Nothing illegal about it. It is the model after all, just not the newest version.
I still use my elderly Ork Trukks, which are substantially smaller/easier to get cover saves with than the new ones (Not so good for blocking LoS though). Of course, in my case it's because I don't have the $120 to drop on four of the new trukks...
I see what you're saying, and I suppose it's all down to context.
Example. You decide to run with the old Avatar in a friendly game. This should never be a problem really. The clue is in the title. It's a friendly. Adherence to the rules is important, but far more about the spirit of them than the letter.
But competitive gaming. If your entire Eldar force (barring one or two recent additions I guess) is clearly comprised of old models, replete with dust, then I foresee no problem (apart from the aforementioned Douche's). However, if the rest of your force is comprised of the modern models, and you suddenly whip out Mini-Khaine, would it be an unreasonable assumption to claim you are looking for an advantage? Not necessarily accurate (I'm not accusing) but hopefully you could see where they were coming from?
Trench-Raider wrote: For example the old "beakie" marines are almost a head smaller than the current examples, yet no one objects to their use...and correctly so.
Actually, I have seen people object to the old RT beakies... just not for rules reasons...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But competitive gaming. If your entire Eldar force (barring one or two recent additions I guess) is clearly comprised of old models, replete with dust, then I foresee no problem (apart from the aforementioned Douche's). However, if the rest of your force is comprised of the modern models, and you suddenly whip out Mini-Khaine, would it be an unreasonable assumption to claim you are looking for an advantage? Not necessarily accurate (I'm not accusing) but hopefully you could see where they were coming from?
So?
Its a legal model. Nothing more needs to be said.
Whether he has an old army, new army, a frickkin' counts as army, it is still a legal model. Every army does thing to get an advantage. You can say it is unfair and whine and blubber about it like a baby, but the fact remains, again, that it is a legal model.
This is one time where people should curb their personal dogma.
I am in total and utter agreeance with trench raider on this one.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It's just a game to me. I don't see competitive play as a terribly good idea. What I was trying to do is explore avenues where problems might arise.
I understand and agree to a certain extent (tourneys are the DEVIL), but no matter what my personal feelings are about it, it is a clearly legal thing. There is no ambiguity here, it simply "is".
If I felt that a person was gaining some 'advantage' by it, then I simply wouldnt play that person. But thats not their fault, it is my own personal problem getting in the way.
The main problem arises when newer players see this and they go WTF? not realizing that it is clearly legal. But that is where most problems such as this arise is from 'newish' players not having elderly encyclopaedic knowledge of a model range.
Actually, can tuse difficult terrain regardless, maybe blockage, but what can you do.... someone would have to be really seedy or desperate to use that one over the larger one...
Oh noes Trenchie! I would totally be upset, wail, and gnash my teeth if you attempted to think about bring THAT into my FLGS. There would be blood on the sidewalk let me tell you. I'd make you eat that abomination against all that is good and holy and GW. Really GW was a completely different company back then, so you're a cheating little douche!!!
BigToof wrote:Oh noes Trenchie! I would totally be upset, wail, and gnash my teeth if you attempted to think about bring THAT into my FLGS. There would be blood on the sidewalk let me tell you. I'd make you eat that abomination against all that is good and holy and GW. Really GW was a completely different company back then, so you're a cheating little douche!!!
someone would have to be really seedy or desperate to use that one over the larger one
Or just have an older one painted up and ready to play rather than take the time out from an already over-loaded painting schedule to work on the larger and much "busier" model.
Was that the reaction you were hoping for?)
Are you acusing me of trolling, or is that an attempt at humor, bigtoof?
On one hand, since I know that it's you (and you don't seem like, well, 'that guy') I'd definitely let you use it. No biggie.
On the other hand, it's a much smaller model.
But I can't say that I care too much so I'd just let you use the thing.
And really, the best way to solve the problem is to mount it on a tall base. Like, you mount in on top of that weird kind of cliff thing that comes with the new CSM Terminator Lord.
Something like that.
In the end, I won't care, but mounting it on a properly sized base (one that, when the RT Avatar is placed on it) is pretty much equal to the size of the new Avatar is really the easiest solution.
I've used that avatar in a tournament before and the only one who cried was the local DB who didn't bother to look where I placed my mini's and was surprised by the avatar in turn 3.
Vladsimpaler wrote:In the end, I won't care, but mounting it on a properly sized base (one that, when the RT Avatar is placed on it) is pretty much equal to the size of the new Avatar is really the easiest solution.
-Vlad
Actualy the easiest solution is to mount it on the base it came with. Then show the whining bastard why they make the rules in hardback form.
Also yay for trenchie, showing us it's ok to be an asshat since 1877
Vladsimpaler wrote:In the end, I won't care, but mounting it on a properly sized base (one that, when the RT Avatar is placed on it) is pretty much equal to the size of the new Avatar is really the easiest solution.
-Vlad
Actualy the easiest solution is to mount it on the base it came with. Then show the whining bastard why they make the rules in hardback form.
Also yay for trenchie, showing us it's ok to be an asshat since 1877
I should have clarified. I meant, it's the easiest solution without having to resort to violence.
I like Trenchie. He's the one who got me into the old-school stuff despite the fact that I started in 2007, whether he knows it or not!
Sure , use it. Just let your opponent know what it is (you know " this is an avatar") so you are not "mistakenly" thought as trying to cop a cheap advantage. The larger Model is the standard , and most people will expect to see an Avatar look like it. Otherwise it's a legal model.
Just because something's legal doesn't mean you aren't being a douche if you chose to take advantage of it to win a game.
Playing with an old Avatar that you have had in your collection and have played with for 20 years =/= douchebaggery.
Playing with an old-style Avatar which you bought off ebay last week, just to take extra advantage of cover rules = douchebaggery.
Playing with an old Avatar that has been in your collection but unpainted and unplayed with for 20 years.... that's a harder call.
If you are doing it because you specifically want to take advantage of the cover rule - you are a douche.
If you are doing it because you prefer the older model, can't afford the new one, or some other non-rules-related reason - you are not a douche.
I play people with old models a lot. But that's because they have been playing the game for a long time and don't have time, money, nor inclination to replace an old model for a new one. I couldn't give a fig. It may give them an advantage or a disadvantage. I'm not even going to waste my time working it out.
If, on the other hand, I played someone who I found out had specifically picked older "legal" models because of the in-game advantage they'd confer, I'd consider them to be behaving in a less-than-sporting manner and probably just ridicule them in a jocular fashion. Anyone *that* bothered about winning a game involving toy soldiers and dice deserves my sympathy, not my hatred.
In a tournament setting, its down to the TO and their view of older models. What happens at tournaments is no concern of mine.
No, no you are not. You just to let your opponent know if you aren't. Your stuck in 4th ed man.
must you try and argue with everything i say? you must use models with the origional base provided.
a certain person used smaller bases on his crushers, this was considered to be cheating.
on the same note, any idea how much these avatar models are and how hard to find they are?
Depends on how you use it in my opinion. March it at the head of your army like it really should be, being the incarnation of the Eldar god of war and all, then fine, it won't matter if it's the new one or the old one. But being a douche and using the model just for the LOS advantage, hiding it behind low hills and rocks that the correctly sized model wouldn't be able to hide behind so you can jump out of the bushes and assrape someone?
If you're using it because you paid for the old model and have issues with being "forced" to buy the new up to date one, fine. I understand that kinda sucks ass having spent all that money on old models and then be told you can't use them anymore in the newer version of the game, especially RT-era players since they'd be expected to buy entire new armies to replace the outdated models. Or if you're going with a theme and went looking for all old models for your army, fine...though I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to do that, considering most old models are uglier than sin. But you make a lot of threads like this and in every one it's pretty much the same thing..."Oh gee, it just so turns out that using this old, ugly model will give me some kind of...advantage! Wow that's awesome, and completely legal according to my interpretation of the rules, what do you guys think? Not that I really give a gak what you guys think since I'm going to do it anyway and you can all get bent, but there's nothing wrong with it right?"
I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I honestly don't understand the point. You've already clearly made up your mind, you're going to use the old model and take advantage of the LOS rules with it and you don't care what anyone else thinks because technically it's legal and there's no written rule saying every model you use HAS to be the most up to date version. So why even bother asking then, it's almost like you're trying to provoke people into calling you out on this stuff just so you can argue with them and prove how right you are.
So I say go ahead and use stunty, technically he is an avatar and all. But like someone said earlier, why not go even farther and use epic models? A titan is a titan right, why waste the money on a FW reaver when you can plonk down an Epic titan on a really big base, you can really screw with the LOS rules then. Anyone that refuses to play with you for that is just a dick anyway.
Vladsimpaler wrote:In the end, I won't care, but mounting it on a properly sized base (one that, when the RT Avatar is placed on it) is pretty much equal to the size of the new Avatar is really the easiest solution.
-Vlad
Actualy the easiest solution is to mount it on the base it came with. Then show the whining bastard why they make the rules in hardback form.
Also yay for trenchie, showing us it's ok to be an asshat since 1877
Thats BS. I remember 1877. Trenchie's no 1877. 1921 maybe, but no way 1877.
George Spiggott wrote:This is the third thread by the OP on essentially the same subject. I wonder if he's planning to go through the entire RT range in this fashion.
4th by my count. The first one was fun, the second interesting, this one is just boring. Same opinions, same discussion, same sad responses. Personally I don't understand why there's a need for more than one of these threads. I don't think it's "trolling" per se, ie posting something inflamatory, or likely to cause a flamewar, but it's beginning to become a rut. I think I'm just going to ignore the next one, which is a bit of a shame, I like these little trips down memory lane. Trenchie and I got started about the same time, and have similar outlooks on WYSIWYG.
He's also got a couple of other threads that seem to devolve into WYSIWYG discussions. And these are all fairly recent threads, two of which are still at the top of the Dakka Discussions list.
I really do understand where he's coming from, but honestly it's beating a dead horse that this point.
He's also got a couple of other threads that seem to devolve into WYSIWYG discussions. And these are all fairly recent threads, two of which are still at the top of the Dakka Discussions list.
I really do understand where he's coming from, but honestly it's beating a dead horse that this point.
Then don't read them. Its not a difficult solution.
As has been stated, the central question here is: "Can I use a Citadel Miniatures Eldar Avatar Model designed for 40k as my Eldar Avater in a game of 40k?"
The answer, of course, is yes.
As the proud owner of over two dozen old Rhino Hulled space marine vehicles, I see no reason to upgrade when new models come out.
As for advantages in game play, maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see very many. Maybe you can black LOS completely to it, but the avatar doesn't care about cover (it has a 4++), and it's still not exactly a tiny model that's easy to hide.
As for the meta discussion regarding the abundance of threads on this general topic, I guess I don't care, if only because general consensus I think was different in nearly all of them. There are key differences between old models, counts as issues, WYSIWYG conversion issues, etc.
Frazzled wrote:Ooh ooh I have one. He's so small he makes an excellent EPIC scale avatar.
Put him on a proper base. Everyone agree his real height for LOS purposes is 2in (or whatever the nromal height is) tall. Life is fine.
I agree with this. You can use the old model, sure. It is a legal model. But, if you get to use the new rules for it, I get to shoot at you as though you were the 54mm tall version. You cant say in one breath "I'm a monstrous creature!” and “I am hiding behind a small trash can.” If you play ‘new model rules’ I can play ‘new model rules’ too. Cover is not granted unless it would have covered the biggy.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I agree with this. You can use the old model, sure. It is a legal model. But, if you get to use the new rules for it, I get to shoot at you as though you were the 54mm tall version. You cant say in one breath "I'm a monstrous creature!” and “I am hiding behind a small trash can.” If you play ‘new model rules’ I can play ‘new model rules’ too. Cover is not granted unless it would have covered the biggy.
I'm curious to where that rule is in the BRB, I haven't seen it.
While I agree that buying an older model specifically to gain an advantage is an asshat move there is absolutely no rule against it.
Like I said earlier in the post I have several old Ork Trukks that I use simply because I don't have the inclination to spend $100+ to replace them with the new models.
I couldn't move one of my trukks in front of a mob of boys and say "Well, you can't really see those boys to shoot at them because if I had the new model it would be tall enough to block your line of sight.
True line of sight is exactly what it says it is: True Line of Sight.
Older models are still legal models, otherwise GW would be punishing their most loyal customers: those who have been in the hobby for a long time.
And the idea of saying: "Well, really it should be X millimeters taller, so it wouldn't get cover" would just add an unnecessary level of complexity to very straightforward rules.
I'm curious to where that rule is in the BRB, I haven't seen it.
While I agree that buying an older model specifically to gain an advantage is an asshat move there is absolutely no rule against it.
Like I said earlier in the post I have several old Ork Trukks that I use simply because I don't have the inclination to spend $100+ to replace them with the new models.
I couldn't move one of my trukks in front of a mob of boys and say "Well, you can't really see those boys to shoot at them because if I had the new model it would be tall enough to block your line of sight.
True line of sight is exactly what it says it is: True Line of Sight.
Older models are still legal models, otherwise GW would be punishing their most loyal customers: those who have been in the hobby for a long time.
And the idea of saying: "Well, really it should be X millimeters taller, so it wouldn't get cover" would just add an unnecessary level of complexity to very straightforward rules.
It's in the section on "Asshatery".
Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:It's in the section on "Asshatery".
Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!
gee, isnt someone bitter.
There is nothing wrong with using the Old Model.
Saying otherwise makes YOU the asshat.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!
If GW had at one point and time sold a blister full of boltguns and bases labeled "Space Marines" I would see no problem with that. However, as far as I know they never did that. I suppose you could still do it as "Counts As" if you really wanted to, good luck with that.
No, the avatar is not the same one as the current codex, but again if GW announced that every time they re-sculpted a model the old versions could no longer be used..well...it probably wouldn't go over too well. (Then again neither would saying: "That army doesn't exist anymore" ala LATD, so who knows, they might still do it sometime in the future.)
Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!
first off, there is no such section in the rule book. The most important rule is to play for fun, which I would argue using old models often is.
The rhinos are significantly different in size, as are the trukks, which is part of the problem. Look at some of the old demon prince models: they're the size of an Ork Nob.
You do realize that infantry get cover saves regardless of the size of the cover, right? So the only reason to make your infantry tiny is to hide them utterly. In addition, I'd argue that bolters on bases aren't WYSIWYG, because I don't know if they are marines, chaos marines, sisters of battle, or a variant chapter.
Look, the model got significantly larger, but the old avatar of Khaine is pretty clearly an avatar: well armored, big flamey decorations, a giant weapon, etc.
I fail to see how, even if played by an utter WAAC jerk, using that model would really give that big of an advantage.
The really fun part of this is that you can actually "build" the avatar almost completely out of rules that infantry models all already have. Kharn has the high S and the Monstrous Creature bonus to vehicles, Cassius is T6, Every marine captain has a 3+/4++, plenty of models have melta guns, etc. I guess I just don't feel horribly offended by the idea of an infantry sized avatar.
Gwar! wrote:There is nothing wrong with using the Old Model.
Saying otherwise makes YOU the asshat.
Ok. I have no problem being an asshat so long as it is because I say that a monstrous creature does not get cover saves from something only 10mm tall.
Have an old Carnifex? No problem. That model was a monstrous creature and still is.
Have an old marine? No problem, that model was infantry and still is.
Have an old wartrukk? No problem, that model was a vehicle and still is.
Have an old avatr? Problem. That model is infantry. The rules call for a monstrous creature. This does not work. If you really want to play it, fine. Take of 2 points of S and T and lose the Monstrous Creature rules. But who would do that? You take an Avatar to get those very rules.
It's certainly tourney legal to use the old Avatar model.
Some people will ding you on soft scores just right off the bat because it's so small.
As others have said, depending how you treat the model, I might or might not ding you. During deployment, do you call out, "Hey, here's my avatar. I know it's the older one and pretty small in comparison. But, I've been using it for 20 years and just like it." Do you hide it behind a Wraithguard to block LOS, or put it out in front of the whole army? etc.
With TLOS, it helps and hurts the smaller model. I think it helps it more than hurts it - I think it helps it a lot.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Ok. I have no problem being an asshat so long as it is because I say that a monstrous creature does not get cover saves from something only 10mm tall.
So...I don't have an Eldar codex, but I played against an Eldar army with an avatar last week and it seems like the Avatar gets a 4+ invulnerable save anyways....
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[
Have an old avatr? Problem. That model is infantry. The rules call for a monstrous creature. This does not work. If you really want to play it, fine. Take of 2 points of S and T and lose the Monstrous Creature rules. But who would do that? You take an Avatar to get those very rules.
I am Asshat. You no play that! Done.
Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?
As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?
DebonaireToast wrote:So...I don't have an Eldar codex, but I played against an Eldar army with an avatar last week and it seems like the Avatar gets a 4+ invulnerable save anyways....
So....what's the issue?
True line of sight is the issue.
An infantry unit can completely block line of sight to the 'monstrous creature' behind them. This allows a few rounds of moving up without taking any shooting. If the 'real' model was played, there would have been 2 wounds done to it before it got in combat. The small model allows you to march right up to battle without any risk. That is a big problem.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:It's in the section on "Asshatery".
Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!
Pure exaggeration literally to the point of hyperbole that doesnt even have the redeeming quality of being humorous.
Saying a model is not a model from a current codex brings this game down a perilous path it was never intended to go.
YOU say it is an infantry model. While it may be the same height as most commonly seen infantry, it is infact, an Eldar Avatar of Kaela Mensha Khaine and the rules say that it is a monstrous creature.
Are wraithguard monstrous creatures because they do not share the same height as most other infantry in the game? What about termagaunts? They are half the size of normal infantry. I am sure you can see the pattern arising here.
It is simply a model made by GW that GW defined as an Eldar Avatar originally for use in 40K and later ported over to epic. It is a model whose rules change along with how it is sculpted throughout the editions, just like any other.
I'd make the argument that it's pretty hard to hide with any infantry available to eldar except maybe Wraithguard.
Admittedly, I'd be pretty scrupulous about claiming LOS to that guy, even if I can only see a tiny scrap of shoulder, but the possible advantage is so slight as to not really be worth much arguing.
Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?
As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?
So, would you be fine if you played against someone who played a termagant 'counts as' a carnifex? Then hid the 'carnifex' behind a wall of gants to get up to you without being shot so that he was at full wounds when charging into combat? Anyone who tried this would be laughed at. But this model has the same name! What a world of difference![sarcasm]
Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?
As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?
So, would you be fine if you played against someone who played a termagant 'counts as' a carnifex? Then hid the 'carnifex' behind a wall of gants to get up to you without being shot so that he was at full wounds when charging into combat? Anyone who tried this would be laughed at. But this model has the same name! What a world of difference![sarcasm]
that was some clever arguing. See, I said something was legal, and then you asked if somebody doing someting completely different would also be ok. You sir, are a wit of quite notable distinction.
look, the rules have always been simple: you can always use old models, either as what they originally represented, or if no longer possible, as the closest logical counts as. In this case, it's an avatar. I don't know what else you're supposed to use an avatar for.
To actually address what shreds of a point your post contained, the old Avatar model was, for it's time, an unusually large infantry model. Even now it's pretty big. The avatar model is a fairly small monstrous creature. I think the gap, while noticeable, isn't nearly as ludicrous as you seem to think it is. To analogize to termagants (a small infantry model) and carnifexes (a very large MC model) is misleading at best and outright obtuse at worst.
that was some clever arguing. See, I said something was legal, and then you asked if somebody doing someting completely different would also be ok. You sir, are a wit of quite notable distinction.
I was attempting to state that except for the name of the model (Which as near as I can tell shows up in the 1991 Blue catalog) is shared by the larger current model (the 1993 black catalogue) the situation is similar (not exact match, just similar). We are talking about deliberately using a smaller model to gain benefits not available to the current, larger model.
Again, this is not the exact same issue, but the motivation is the same. I do not enjoy games where the other side of the board will do anything to win. The BRB does not prevent this, therefore it is legal. But by that logic, the BRB does not prevent spiking your foe's drink either.
He wants to play it he can play it. But the first time he tries to deny line of sight based on being the smaller model, he has crossed a line with me.
I might be wrong as far as the game goes. You guys play to win at all costs. Okay.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I was attempting to state that except for the name of the model (Which as near as I can tell shows up in the 1991 Blue catalog) is shared by the larger current model (the 1993 black catalogue) the situation is similar (not exact match, just similar). We are talking about deliberately using a smaller model to gain benefits not available to the current, larger model.
I think it's important in times like this to keep the issues straight. The first issue is if the model is legal to be used, which I think we all have to admit that it is. The second is if a player doing so is being unsportsmanlike, and if so, should he be sanctioned in some way.
the first issue is pretty objective and constant, but the second issue has very little to do with the model, it has everything to do with the player using it. A player might drop the old avatar, play it in good faith, and never try to play any LOS games with it.
Again, this is not the exact same issue, but the motivation is the same. I do not enjoy games where the other side of the board will do anything to win. The BRB does not prevent this, therefore it is legal. But by that logic, the BRB does not prevent spiking your foe's drink either.
Again, be careful of ascribing motivation to an act. I don't use old Rhinos because I want an advantage, I used them because they were cheap!
He wants to play it he can play it. But the first time he tries to deny line of sight based on being the smaller model, he has crossed a line with me.
Well, I think this is where you need to be aware of how difficult that would actually be. Think of it like this: can you block LOS to a terminator with space marines? not really. It would be very hard to actually pull that off with the old Avatar, and doing so would slow down the eldar advance. I think that in practice, there would be very few actual advantages. Of course, if you're playing with a toolbox, you'll probably know long before minor LOS issues with the Avatar show up.
I might be wrong as far as the game goes. You guys play to win at all costs. Okay.
I take a little issue with that statement. I would argue that we are being gentleman and good sports in allowing a neat older model that allows our opponents a minor advantage unto the table. There are rules, there are traditions, and there is simple good faith and honor among gamers, and I think that all of those agree with our position. I wouldn't make the argument that trying to deny an opponent use of a legal model simply because he gains an advantage is closer to WAAC behavior, but I'm sure somebody could. The very definition of WAAC implies that you would engage in any behavior not strictly forbidden to gain an advantage or deny your opponent one. While using a smaller avatar simply to make it easier to hide might be WAAC behavior, so would disallowing the model or demanding that you have LOS.
I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.
No, you play stupid.
I play fair by following the rules and not cheating. That is what fair is. If I have an older model, which through no fault of my own is smaller than the current generation, why am I an asshat for using it? One could easily call you an asshat for making a fuss, and I could then accuse you of not trying to win fairly (i.e. on the tabletop) but rather try and make me out to be the bad guy and a cheater when I have done no such thing.
So again, you would call me an asshat and a cheater because GW decided to make their new model ranges bigger?
Again, if its an issue, play its height as the current model. At start fo game or when deployed, pull the avatar out. State can play as physicial LOS, or if the opposing player would prefer, as the standard current height for an avatar.
If someone still complains, they are just being a mangina abnd should be mercilessly beaten with a wet noodle. Their socks should be forcefully removed and given to Malf, and they should be forced to moderate a debate between JohnnyH and HBMC. .
If you took that avatar for the purposes of hiding it out of line of sight, didn't offer to measure LOS as if it was the correct size (yeah, for what the rules are now, and why it has a large model now), I just wouldn't play you.
ph34r wrote:If you took that avatar for the purposes of hiding it out of line of sight, didn't offer to measure LOS as if it was the correct size (yeah, for what the rules are now, and why it has a large model now), I just wouldn't play you.
Why thank you for my Automatic Game win! Just another step closer to wining the tournament!
As said many many times before, if you are gonna be a douche in a friendly game, just because they are following the rules, even if it has a newer model, that's your problem. The rules dont say "oh and if there's a different model that is bigger, use that one as a reference for LoS" it says "use true Los"
In a tournament (assuming no house ruleage to the contrary), its 100% legal, you are under no obligation to measure LOS to hight of the new model, and to be annoyed by it makes you the asshat.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.
You're confusing gentlemanly and decency.
It would be insanely rude to not allow the avatar at all. It would be gentlemanly to allow the model and allow the LOS tricks. Part of being the bigger man is dealing with lesser men, and if you play a guy that really thinks hiding a model will really help him, than sometimes you just accept it. it's not cheating, I dont' even think it's immoral, it's simply a matter of taste. I would not do that, but I'm not going to presume that my opponent is a WAAC boor simply because of that. Now, if I have other evidence, than I would feel more comfortable docking points for the behavior, but then, I don't need just the LOS games, do I?
I am not an artist, so forgive the poor images.
Now, with a banner on the guardian champion you can completely block line of sight. ( I did not put it on there, but you can see how).
That makes this a no-go in my book.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not an artist, so forgive the poor images.
Now, with a banner on the guardian champion you can completely block line of sight. ( I did not put it on there, but you can see how).
That makes this a no-go in my book.
Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.
You're right Polonius. But it irks me to see that the lower road is praised here. While there is nothing 'evil' about using this model, or using the small ghazkull thraka, or others of this type I feel it is shallow. I am being harder here than I would be in person. But I still think it shallow.
Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.
I can see it just fine.
True. But I was making the point that this model does infact gain the ability to hide behind infantry and the current model lacks this. That is unsporting.
Banner dont count, either way. You cannot shoot if only a banner or wings or spearhead etc are showing, so likewise you need to be blocked by the body of the opponent. Terrain is different though, ironically an avenue of flags might provide cover that a unit does not.
The Avatar above would not be screened by guardians in any case, the real issues are low walls, wraithguard and vehicles. In all those cases the smaller avatar has a clear advantage.
Size Matters?
Yes you can abuse this model, but the abuse only breaks the rules if you try to fit the Avatar in a Wave Serpent or some such.
Now if I was at a Gladiator tourney or equivalent, where you are supposxed to chesse your lists taking a pint size Avatar for tactical advantage would be totally in the spirit of the game. Otherwise no however...
Does it Fit the background?
There is no reason why an Avatar cannot be that small. khaine is a god, he appears as large or as small as he wants to - within reason. Some epic artwork shows an Avatar the size of a titan, this one is little more than elf sized. As Khaine is an elf god, is that not appropriate. After all poseidon might appear as an old man or as a towering giant emerging from the waves. Other olympian gods and those of the Norse mythos also rescaled themselves to need. If you give good reason why your avatar is so small, it is excusable. Perhaps your craftworld too small to fully power the Avatar or Khaine forsees he will be clearing buildings or tunnels and chooses a more managable size.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You're right Polonius. But it irks me to see that the lower road is praised here. While there is nothing 'evil' about using this model, or using the small ghazkull thraka, or others of this type I feel it is shallow. I am being harder here than I would be in person. But I still think it shallow.
And I think you're seriously misreading the posts here.
Using old models without taking advantage: Good!
Utilizing any modeling feature for in game advantage: Bad!
Therefore, using old models to gain an advantage is still lousy behavior, but it's lousy regardless of whether or not it's an old model. Using an old model because you like it and the paint job and so in isn't inherently a "low road", and it's very rare that using those models would result in any actual in game advantage, particularly with ghazkgull, who is an IC anyway, not an MC.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.
I can see it just fine.
True. But I was making the point that this model does infact gain the ability to hide behind infantry and the current model lacks this. That is unsporting.
Except he doesn't gain that ability. I can still see him. Look, if a player shows up with a giant banner and a tiny avatar and set is all up so that you can't see from one angle, yes, he is being a jerk and you can call him out on that. I agree that it's bad!
You could hide the current Avatar behind a banner as well, it would just take a larger banner.
Polonius wrote:
Except he doesn't gain that ability. I can still see him. Look, if a player shows up with a giant banner and a tiny avatar and set is all up so that you can't see from one angle, yes, he is being a jerk and you can call him out on that. I agree that it's bad!
You could hide the current Avatar behind a banner as well, it would just take a larger banner.
If it was a converted huge banner then he is in the wrong, but a normal unconverted unit of guardians can block line of sight to this. That is the issue. To say that a conversion can do it to the current model does not justify the smaller model use. As stated by Orlanth terrain is a big part of it too. Or other models, say your own rhino. So many parts of the game would be altered by using a smaller model that we cant even accurately anticipate all of them.
I love older models. I actually thought about finding the very model in question and basing an entire army around it (counting it as a Autarch). I love the model. But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game. That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993. In the 16 years since that replacement, people should have updated. Especially under the current true LOS rules we are in.
hey, i would love to play against that in a tourney. its a great model, way cooler than the current GW one. and definatley on par with the FW one. just stick it on a prpoer sixed base and your good.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I love the model. But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game. That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993. In the 16 years since that replacement, people should have updated. Especially under the current true LOS rules we are in.
This is purely presumption.
Presumption that a person uses this only to 'spank over the game' by 'taking the low road'.
Presumption that all models should be replaced with newer models as they are released.
Models and and the rules in the codex that they reside in are always changing due to new rules. There is no way to stop it. It is, more or less whan all things are considered, a non issue.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game.
I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.
Lets be clear. What you are really proposing is that, with every new codex all existing minis are now illegal. Yea...right...
No, but if a model that was roughly mansized was changed over the editions to be a monstrous creature I would like to see the monstrous creautre version on the table not the mansized. I have no problem with the old carnies. Still big even if smaller. No problem with the old rhinos, still a vehicle even if smaller. Give me other examples and almost all of them will be the same thing but maybe slightly bigger.
This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.
I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.
Here is what the OP said. It is in direct conflict with your other points.
Trench-Raider wrote: Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )
TR
In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.
Um, this is legal, fair and I would have no problem with it.
Why would you? Are you really gonna begrudge a guy who has been a loyal fan over the years but not had the cash to replace every single model he had with the overpriced crap of today?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.
I highlighted the bit that utterly invalidates your argument there.
The current GW stance is "Use true line of sight Modelling can be used for an advantage. This is Fair and Legal." If you have a problem with that, don't play.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.
First, it's really hard to block LOS to on infantry unit with another, because if you can see even one model you can shoot at the unit.
Second, what exactly is the problem if they did that?
I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.
Here is what the OP said. It is in direct conflict with your other points.
Trench-Raider wrote: Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )
TR
In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.
Again, I think you're being deliberatly obtuse. Just because it is possible to use the model for advantage doesn't mean it's always the case. You said the only reason to use old models was to take advantage of rules, and that's clearly not true.
How is the Avatar not WYSIWYG? WYSIWYG mandates that all upgrades and weapons be modeled, and that all units are represented by the appropriate model. the old Avatar is an Avatar, is armed and equipt properly, and is in all ways totally WYSIWYG. You seem hung up on the idea that some how the MC rule implies a size, when it simply does not. there's a strong correlation of size to the MC rule, but things as small as Kharne and Tomb Spiders enjoy that rule.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Using a unit of smaller sized older models as the upgraded Ard Boyz so you can hide them.... what is the problem with that? By the fluff... Everything!
Fluff is not rules.
Again, do you think you can actually screen old orks with new orks to the extnent that drawing LOS is impossible? I'd be shocked if that were even physically possible.
Using a limited release (2 years) small model to represent your god of war (written to have the monstrous creature rules due to is size) on the feild of battle is weak.
Limited release means the model was produced in a set quantity, not for a short amount of time.
Again, MC rules are not always related to size. I hate to harp this, but you seem to ignore it every time. Kharne counts as an MC in combat! Kahrne, a single infantry model. Cassius is T6! There is absolutely no reason not to have high stats on a model of that size.
The OP is looking to spank. The rest of the posters here sond more like they are defending old rhinos, wartrukks and such. I feel the prior is diffenernt from the latter. This is a complete re-work of fluff and models. Two very different ideas that share the same name.
Actually, the OP was arguably incorrect, as he was speaking of cover when the Avatar has a built in 4++. If we're talking LOS issues, than honestly, the difference between the old avatar and the new avatar is actually more or less the same as old wartrukks (very short) and current Wartrukks (quite tall).
Even if the OP were looking to spank, that doesn't mean it's the only reason, or even the main reason he'd bring the model. You seem to have a large amount of hostility towards something that is 1) probably not malicious, and 2) probably not actually an advantage in most games.
If I keep trying to make my point I come across as a gaytard.
so I quit.
I think the problem is that you have an ax to grind about this issue and/or toward the OP, and you've really gotten it in your teeth. I think a careful read of the thread shows that we agree that taking the model solely to hide it easier is unsporting, we just don't see a problem with it due to the unlikelyhood of it being a factor in game and the fairly low chances that the sole reason it'd be brought are to gain advantage. In addition, the rules are pretty explicit about LOS and modeling. A lot of people don't like the current wound allocation rules because you can game them, but they're the rules, and to an extent playing by the rules is a key element of any game.
Osbad wrote:Playing with an old Avatar that has been in your collection but unpainted and unplayed with for 20 years.... that's a harder call.
I never thought about that, I've got old Land Raiders and Rhino's, old Terminators, would anybody complain if I played with them mix with my newer stuff?
Gwar! wrote:As said many many times before, if you are gonna be a douche in a friendly game, just because they are following the rules, even if it has a newer model, that's your problem. The rules dont say "oh and if there's a different model that is bigger, use that one as a reference for LoS" it says "use true Los"
In a tournament (assuming no house ruleage to the contrary), its 100% legal, you are under no obligation to measure LOS to hight of the new model, and to be annoyed by it makes you the asshat.
I'm not serious enough about my toy soldiers to play in tournaments.
Sure, the model is legal. After all it is an avatar miniature. They don't have to measure height to the new model. I don't really have a problem with using old models in general. But if you seek out and use an old, smaller model, just to get a game advantage, then I just don't care about it as much as you, and I won't play you.
Being annoyed by someone using modeling deliberately to gain a significant advantage does not make me an asshat. You suggesting that I am an asshat makes you an asshat.
I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules. As mentioned that Avatar is to small and its base is not correct. While I consider base size and model size rather trivial I would still say NO because that model is such a far cry from its current iteration.
A comrade used his original screamer killers to represent dakkafexes in a nid list, with the latest edition ones as heavy support fexxes. They were absolutely perfect in that role.
I wish the current avatar was eldar sized. That is WAY cooler. Supernaturally strong and fast little guy is much better than big giant smashy melty elf.
since when do we have to use the bloody current models?
how old are the eldar jets? sorry, but thats bsIMO i hate some of the new stuff, the older models look great compared to some of the gak they call models now.
"I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules."
OK, I believe in following the rules. You must believe in following your own rules, because you just made one up.
And why the hell wouldn't you play someone who used it? Who cares for crying out loud, it is a really cool old model. Even if you put it on a bigger base, it is still True LOS, it would still be just as easy to hide him.
Why make a stink about it? If someone has a cool, old painted model, and they are following the rules, then its all good and more fun to see some variety on the table.
Besides in the orginal fluff, the avatar was an eldar that was infused with the power of Khaine, the old model is much truer to that idea. In later versions of the fluff, he got bigger because it looked more impressive.
Anyway, this is a stupid argument, not like you guys are very likely to ever see anyone with the model anyway. In my nearly 15 years of playing 40K, I have played ONE game against it, and it was really fun.
I have played this before. My opponent just finished his brand new eldar army and went out of the way to find this mini. I did not know this at the time of the game. It just blended in with the rest. I assaulted him as he was next to another squad. He then announced that it was the avatar and proceeded to eat my assault squad. He made no mention of this and was being rather circumspect about it. I was not happy at all!
I play for fun. I could care less if I win or lose as long as the game was fun. This one little tactic put a bad taste in my mouth and spoiled the game. In this case it was a WAAC move. This is why it is a bad idea. If the player had a whole old school edar army I would not have had a problem with it. Hell I might have been ok if the player had pointed it out and acknowledged that it does offer a bit of an advantage.
I love older models and use them when I can. If rules are not there for that model I will use it as a counts as instead.
This one comes down to, yes you can do it but should you? If you need this advantage then I say learn to play better and stop trying to cheat your opponent. If you do this for the cool models, I say use it as counts as. If you have a very old eldar army, I say let your opponent know. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I find it amusing that so many people hunt for the smallest advantage and will defend it with venom on their lips. When it is "officially" banned they will move on to the next rules "iffy" thing. It often comes with a certain type of player that must win, but can't seem to do it with out bending the rules to their advantage. I say learn to play better.
It is for these reasons that people are saying, "I would not play that person." Not as much because of the model but the mentality that comes from playing that type of person. More often than not, some one using this tactic would not enjoyable to play against. Legal? Yes. Fun to play? No. Lame advantage? Yes.
It is for these reasons that people are saying, "I would not play that person." Not as much because of the model but the mentality that comes from playing that type of person. More often than not, some one using this tactic would not enjoyable to play against. Legal? Yes. Fun to play? No. Lame advantage? Yes.
Just my 2 cents...
and a good 2 cents at that. The problem isn't the model, and it's never the model. It's always the person playing it.
ShumaGorath wrote:I would not play a player using this unless they had no choice or were just new to the hobby.
why not?
Too small and easy to hide, it's an unfair advantage granted by the size of the model itself. This is a game as well as a modeling hobby. I don't like it when the modeling gets in the way of the games functionality and fairness. Avatars are very high priority targets, and are large for a reason. A tiny model especially in the current ruleset harms the avatar in no way (its doesn't need line of sight) but makes it hard for me to take it down (It can be screened by ANYTHING).
Has anyone brought up the old, infantry-sized Obliterators yet? I know someone would be pissed if I tried to pull the same crap with that. This argument is stupid, and your models should, at the very least, be counted as the same size as a current version of the model.
oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.
So the [edit]CURRENT Eldar Avatar[/edit] model made over 15 years ago was made with 3rd, 4th or 5th edition in mind?
GW certainly are some seriously talented games designers to pull that trick off.
I wonder why we have so many debates over rules if that is true.
Must be just stupid people being stupid.
I think I heard Jervis say that once.
You've not made a retort that proves me wrong only posted witless diatribe.
Do you know that the 2nd version of the Avatar (2nd edition) had a square base? Do you know that the 3rd version of the Avatar (3rd edition) even though it used the same model had a round base? Do you know that SM dreadnoughts used to not even use a base? Model evolution is abundantly clear, but just because GW has not changed the model recently means nothing other than it's current version is perfectly fine.
What about the older terminators - the RT era metal ones (which I think were a little smaller, or at least less dramatically posed than even the later plastics) or the original Space Hulk plastic ones? They're a lot easier to hide as well.
So, two questions:
1) Is it legal? Yes.
2) Is it sporting? Maybe, depends on the player.
The old oblits don't bother me as much. As they are still pretty obvious as to what they are. The size difference is not so great. They are like the older termies. I still use the older termies on smaller bases. I have ran this army for years and no one has ever said anything about them. In the same army I have newer termies as well with the larger bases. With older termies and oblits they are still infantry models and not MC so few people will mind. Any advantage they might have is pretty small. Not to the degree as a tiny Avatar.
On that note the funniest and lamest thing I have seen from the same edlar player was a wraithlord who was laying down like a sniper. His feet were crossed and his profile was so low it looked like it got stepped on by a titan. Once again it is the player that makes all the difference. Lets just say neither model truly surprised me.
oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.
So the [edit]CURRENT Eldar Avatar[/edit] model made over 15 years ago was made with 3rd, 4th or 5th edition in mind?
GW certainly are some seriously talented games designers to pull that trick off.
I wonder why we have so many debates over rules if that is true.
Must be just stupid people being stupid.
I think I heard Jervis say that once.
You've not made a retort that proves me wrong only posted witless diatribe.
Ohhh wanna be nasty? Ok, lets dance.
You said current models are designed for current rules. I was retorting to your blanket statement that a model that was designed over 15 years ago cannot be designed for rules used today. The rules evolve but the models from previous sculpts have never been cited by GW as being illegal unless the equipment for such is removed entirely from the rules (an example of such is the SM razorback TL Plasmagun/Lascannon option that was removed in 4th ed, but reinstated in 5th ed).
oni wrote:Do you know that the 2nd version of the Avatar (2nd edition) had a square base? Do you know that the 3rd version of the Avatar (3rd edition) even though it used the same model had a round base? Do you know that SM dreadnoughts used to not even use a base? Model evolution is abundantly clear, but just because GW has not changed the model recently means nothing other than it's current version is perfectly fine.
Yes, yes and yes. Thanks for the history lesson.
What does bases have to do with the evolution of models? All of the the models you mentioned that are based on the old bases (or lack thereof as in the case of the SM dreadnought) are still perfectly legal. They are afterall the bases (or lack thereof) that were supplied with the models. Looking at the 'current' 5th ed 40K rules that is all that is required for basing.
No one is disputing the current version of the eldar avatar as not being 'perfectly fine'. The dispute is whether the older model is legal or not. So far I have not seen anyone give a good reason (your rather catty response included) or legal basis for disputing such legality of the old RT area Eldar Avatar use in a 40K game.
Can you cite the rules that dispute my 'witless diatribe'?
I eagerly look forward to your obviously condescending rebuttal.
Does anyone have the rules for "Little Avi" (as I will call it)? The '91 rules? And how did those rules change in '93?
In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar. It would have been a model for something else, just a similar name (the 91 catalog does not say what it is an avatar of, just avatar).
Once again...Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It is obvious as to why you shouldn't, it provides an advantage that was not intended. The karn example above does not apply, Karn fights like he is a monsterous creature, not that he IS one. The avatar IS a MC and should be shown appropriately. I really don't wanna get involved in this but this is getting silly Oni and Hellfury. By RAW you can...because it doesn't say you can't. That is the crux of the argument. You can...but you should be ready to to called a douchtool for obvious reasons.
As I see it. This is just nerd rage over something that has a obvious answer. Yes you can and no you shouldn't. Both sides are right in those regards. But choosing to do so will not make you friends and you should expect this reaction, both on this thread and when you play at your FLGS. Unless you have a very very good reason to to this, like a old school edlar army people will just call it like they see it. Rules exploitation and WAAC mentality.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar.
How? That's like saying that since in RT Marines were S3(4) T3 and in 2nd Ed they were S4 T4, then you therefore can't use them as Marines today because they're obviously not the same thing despite having the same name.
Your conclusion does not make logical sense. What rules a unit had in a former edition is irrelevant to what the model itself actually is.
Sha1emade wrote: By RAW you can...because it doesn't say you can't. That is the crux of the argument. You can...but you should be ready to to called a douchtool for obvious reasons.
As I see it. This is just nerd rage over something that has a obvious answer. Yes you can and no you shouldn't. Both sides are right in those regards. But choosing to do so will not make you friends and you should expect this reaction, both on this thread and when you play at your FLGS. Unless you have a very very good reason to to this, like a old school edlar army people will just call it like they see it. Rules exploitation and WAAC mentality.
Just saying...
Not because it doesnt say you cant, but because you can. There is a distinct difference there between those two mentalities and your post is grouping both of them into one lump sum that can only be described in such derogatory terms as "waac" and "tfg" if you do. I preffered your previous fair and balanced post that had a far less accusing tone on the topic.
The advantages gained by using a model that is 1/2" shorter than the current model are so slight, that I would be more worried about a dual nob biker army that some guy who has an old eldar avatar model that he wants to use. But thats a subjective view of abuse, like everything else in this thread.
But thats my perspective. None need adhere or apply to it.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar.
How? That's like saying that since in RT Marines were S3(4) T3 and in 2nd Ed they were S4 T4, then you therefore can't use them as Marines today because they're obviously not the same thing despite having the same name.
Your conclusion does not make logical sense. What rules a unit had in a former edition is irrelevant to what the model itself actually is.
For the most part I agree with you on rules not affecting models UNLESS the rules changed the model type. What I am accusing of happening here (and asking if anyone has the proof) was that a smaller model was dropped and a Monstrous creature was created.
So going to your example of RT Marines, this would be like the new rules calling dreadnoughts "Tactical Marines" and you try to use the RT marines as the "Tactical Marine" Dreadnoughts. This would not work because the "Tactical Marine" Dreadnought is HUGE and a vehicle while the RT marines are infantry.
That is my take. The new rules call their monstrous creature an Avatar. This puny model was also called Avatar 16 years ago, but it is not a monstrous creature.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:For the most part I agree with you on rules not affecting models UNLESS the rules changed the model type. What I am accusing of happening here (and asking if anyone has the proof) was that a smaller model was dropped and a Monstrous creature was created.
Then you won't get what you're looking for. I happen to have my 2nd Edition Codex: Eldar next to my computer, the rules for which the current Avatar model was created. There is nothing classing an Avatar as a Monstrous Creature in the book, nor in 2nd Edition, because there was no such thing in the 40K rules as a Monstrous Creature until 3rd Edition, there was only Infantry, Support Weapons, and Vehicles(anything an Infantry model was allowed to drive/pilot, like a Bike).
To be fair Hellfury I have seen this used in the worst possible scenario. For that reason I lump it into WAAC and tfg. Not everyone will use it for this reason but most will think that, myself included as I have been on that side of the issue. I believe you to be defending RAW. That is fine and a safe bet. What I am getting at is not the model but the player. Many, my guess is most, will use this not for the novelty of the old model or because of it is the only model they have but will use it for the sheer advantage it brings with it. That mentality makes for games that I do not enjoy. Others think this way as well. I have never said you were wrong or you can't do it. I was simply pointing out how others will look at you for using it. My reaction is tame compared to what others will do.
Also I was not taking your side or oni's. You are both right. Oni needs to be prepared to allow the model as it is legal. You should be prepared to get the stab eye from you opponent. Works both ways.
Then you won't get what you're looking for. I happen to have my 2nd Edition Codex: Eldar next to my computer, the rules for which the current Avatar model was created. There is nothing classing an Avatar as a Monstrous Creature in the book, nor in 2nd Edition, because there was no such thing in the 40K rules as a Monstrous Creature until 3rd Edition, there was only Infantry, Support Weapons, and Vehicles(anything an Infantry model was allowed to drive/pilot, like a Bike).
Do you have the rules for the '91 model? (asking honestly, not as jerk)
If you (any of you) were playing "Little Avi" at a tournament, and I pull out an assembled Normal Avatar and asked you to use that for our game, would you?
Gen. Lee, the book you're looking for is the Warhammer 40,000 Compilation, released in 1991. This is the first time the Craftworld Eldar appeared(and thus the Avatar).
Sha1emade wrote:To be fair Hellfury I have seen this used in the worst possible scenario. For that reason I lump it into WAAC and tfg. Not everyone will use it for this reason but most will think that, myself included as I have been on that side of the issue. I believe you to be defending RAW. That is fine and a safe bet. What I am getting at is not the model but the player. Many, my guess is most, will use this not for the novelty of the old model or because of it is the only model they have but will use it for the sheer advantage it brings with it. That mentality makes for games that I do not enjoy. Others think this way as well. I have never said you were wrong or you can't do it. I was simply pointing out how others will look at you for using it. My reaction is tame compared to what others will do.
Also I was not taking your side or oni's. You are both right. Oni needs to be prepared to allow the model as it is legal. You should be prepared to get the stab eye from you opponent. Works both ways.
Fair enough.
I actually do use one and the only remarks I have ever seen towards it use is "what is that?" (from the kiddies) and "sweet. havent seen that in awhile" (from the vets). Admittedly, I havent played eldar in over a year, so I havent seen any opponents opinions regarding its use first hand since well before the release of 5th ed.
I agree about its how the player uses it. Luckily the people I play mostly against here arent utter gaks so I do retain some semblance of faith in the wargaming community however sparse that faith may be.
If you are a fun and good player... I would not mind in the slightest. But yes it is the player. If your group doesn't have a problem with letting you use it then that speaks more for you then of them. Unless your group is hyper competitive and allow every rules twist than you are probably not TFG so you have little to worry about so it is a non issue in your case. However if used in a tournament with a player that might not know you, you might get a different reaction. If one of my buddies did this I would be ok unless it was only used for the advantage it provides. For the record I love the model and did spend some time admiring it. Wish it was painted better.
I don't think I would have a problem if the model was pointed out in pre-game as being the avatar.
Getting it sprung on me at turn 2 would piss me off.
I saw Ghazkull mentioned earlier. Ghazkull's old model shouldn't be used as Ghaz because his equipment has changed.
That model is clearly not wearing mega-armor. (see Marneus Calgar)
Also, maybe I am wrong, but wasn't the Lil Avatar used in epic in later years? or is there another sculpt?
This is a perfectly legitimate model, albeit an older one. It is an Avatar, end of.
However it is perfectly legitimate concern that it is smaller than the current Avatar and newer players may not, at a glance, realise that it is an Avatar model. So I suggest 2 simple things to avoid possible confrontations.
1) Use the same size base as the current avatar, which I believe is 40mm. This avoids situations where the older smaller model may be able to hide in places where the newer one may not and allows the model to stand out appropriately for its status.
2) Make it totally clear during deployment that the model is an Avatar and will be playing that part during the game. Especially if your not play an old grizzled vet who is not familiar with the models history.
As long as you do that I see no issue.
The earlier poster (sorry I've forgotten who) who mentioned a player who used this model and didn’t mention that it was an Avatar is a prime example of poor sportsmanship. Using older models because they look cool and retro and are bit of GW history is fine. Using them because you can gain some kind of advantage over your opponent that using the newer model may not provide is a No No.
(and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )
Ill assume that when you said that you were being sarcastic or mischievous. If not my sympathy for your intentions in using this model have gone out of the window.
1) Use the same size base as the current avatar, which I believe is 40mm. This avoids situations where the older smaller model may be able to hide in places where the newer one may not and allows the model to stand out appropriately for its status.
but then you are breaking rules by not using the origional base size
dietrich wrote:What about the older terminators - the RT era metal ones (which I think were a little smaller, or at least less dramatically posed than even the later plastics) or the original Space Hulk plastic ones? They're a lot easier to hide as well.
So, two questions:
1) Is it legal? Yes.
2) Is it sporting? Maybe, depends on the player.
You can take my old Space Hulk terminators, when you pry them from my COLD DEAD HANDS!!!
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:If you (any of you) were playing "Little Avi" at a tournament, and I pull out an assembled Normal Avatar and asked you to use that for our game, would you?
And if no, why not?
Ok as promised here are the RT White Dwarf Compilation stats for the Eldar Avatar. I have tried to translate and shorten some of the convoluted language used in RT for his special rules so people who play current 40K may more easily understand.
Armour save: is 2+ with 4+ invulnerable that can never be modified on 1D6 (this means that such weapons like a lascannon with a -6 to the save modifier doesn't affect the avatars 4+ save. He is indeed a pimp.)
Weapon: The Suin Daellae The Doom that Wails. The avatar gets his 1D4 +1 attacks at his 1D4 +4 strength. It confers a -6 save modifier so an enemy struck by it will always die unless it basically has an invulnerable save as well.
Psychology: He is immune to all psychology and causes fear in all living opponents. (In RT these types of psychology were based on the "cool" stat and checks were made with the same. A unit that failed its psychology check for fear cannot charge, if charged by something it fears it automatically routes, if attacked by a weapon it fears it must take a route test.)
Special immunities: Is immune to gas weapons because it doesn't breathe. Melta, plasma and flamer weapons are less effective against him. This means that those weapons do not apply their save modifiers to the avatar and the avatar will always save against these on a 2+
Powers: Avatar get 1D4 Warrior Powers (special eldar powers in the eldar list) The avatar is the only eldar who may have more than one warrior power.
Loss of the Avatar: If the avatar is somehow miraculously slain in battle, this is a dire portent and considered a great and devastating calamity to the eldar. Each eldar unit, vehicle and character must take an immediate route test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the random nature of the avatar from this edition, as has been said by a poster earlier he can take many forms, from man sized being to a full blown titan sized monster.
I am not sure what the comparison will prove towards using the older model in the newer editions, but there you go.
all in all, he kicked ass back then and still does (maybe less so now)
so the rules are just as strong for each model in the time they were made.
i still see nothing wrong with it.
skrulnik wrote:Ghazkull's old model shouldn't be used as Ghaz because his equipment has changed.
That model is clearly not wearing mega-armor. (see Marneus Calgar)
Yeah, but the little avatar has the wrong Doom.
It's supposed to be a Wailing Doom, not a Doom that Wails. That's not WYSIWYG, that's not WYSIWYG at all!
JD21290 wrote:all in all, he kicked ass back then and still does (maybe less so now)
so the rules are just as strong for each model in the time they were made.
i still see nothing wrong with it.
Perhaps, but in direct comparison to the 2nd ed stats that you have posted, they just gave him the max stats for RT instead of making it variable.
In all fairness, it could indeed be argued that the RT avatar was somewhat weaker than editions that proceed it. Lack of total immunity to heatbased weapons, variable stats potentially making him not as strong, etc. But on the flip side he does get up to 4 warrior powers, and those aren't bad at all (basically they are very similar in effect to the exarch abilities we have now). So perhaps it balances out his variable stat weakness.
I really don't think it proves anything other than satisfying an academic curiosity.
As polonius said, its the player, not the model. So long as someone is upfront about it then who gives a rat's ass? And screening the avatar? hahaha, why? He has a 4++ already? And, you can screen the big version from HtH just as easily.
Again, putting the small avatar on a bigger base accomlishes nothing, it is still true LOS, he is still short and easily hidden behind terrain.
Anyway, this is dumb. I use the FW avatar because it is a sweet ass model, and I would not care one bit if someone used the little one.
Hellfury wrote:Given the random nature of the avatar from this edition, as has been said by a poster earlier he can take many forms, from man sized being to a full blown titan sized monster.
I am not sure what the comparison will prove towards using the older model in the newer editions, but there you go.
To me this suggests that while the old model would have been appropriate a lot of the time as you could roll to have him be man or ogre sized, for which the old one would work, but the new version is "always big all the time", so the old model does not represent this well.
A couple of points. First is that after dudeface (can't remember his name) posted that picture of the old Avatar comparing it to the current (won't say new!) Avatar, and a unit of Guardians... it made me realize that the old model's really not that much smaller. It still stands head and shoulders above the Guardians, and it looks pretty much just like the current model, and the argument that a player could model banners onto his guardians to block LoS, while true, is also pretty damned silly.
My second point is that people who are hiding their Avatar behind Guardians are doing it very, very wrong. The avatar always has a 4+ invulnerable save, so the benefits of cover are nonexistant. He's pretty much also the toughest unit in the book... so why are you making it harder for the opponent to target it instead of one of your more fragile units? It's just plain silly.
It's the same thing as people who go OMGCROUCHINGWRAITHLORDS!!!1!
Seriously... I like having tough heavy weapons platforms that can draw LoS over nearly anything...
Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and thinking that smaller is always better... think about how the game actually works.
I think the thing is that the current avatar is pretty impossible to totally hide behind something, like a tank or building. With the old it's possible.
My guess is for HtH units shorter is better as you can hide them. Shooting units are better taller so they can get the shot. A mini carnifex would be brutal...a mini devastator squad would be less useful. A short wraithlord would still be better shorter as it is better in close combat. That would be where people have the problem.
)
