There's a kid at my hobby club that uses a Gorkamorka truck to transport his nobs BEHIND a real ork truck holding boys, and I find it absolutely stupid. Is it seriously legal?

Yes, it is technically legal. Yes, he is being a tool.

The Gorkamorka trukk was also the regular 40K Ork trukk for quite a few years.

The rules don't require you to update your models to the newest version. So yes, it's perfectly legal to use the smaller trukk, and screen it with the newer one.

Given how fragile Trukks are, it doesn't really seem like that big a deal. Particularly since, thanks to the magic of perspective, if he was using a full size trukk for his Nobs, he would generally still be able to hide it behind the Boyz' trukk.

What pretre said. It's legal, but the size disparity is SO great that this is one of the few instances where many players object to the old model. Some large tournaments actually require it to be replaced by or treated as the current model size.

It is also perfectly legal to not play him because he is modeling for advantage.

Gorkamorka trukks are abusive and have no place as trukks in 5th edition and I am a ork player who has 50k+ of orks and almost every ork vehicle ever made.

The grace period is over, it is time to update your trukks and battlewagons fellas. No reason to have skateboards and 12"x24" tanks on the table.

My tool comment was mostly for specifically hiding it behind a larger truck. If he just had a mix, that's understandable.

I have a mate who has a few old ones and a few new ones, but he never tries the hiding trick. A real sportsman, that. And we both would probably just not play (again) vs someone who actually uses this for advantage.

nkelsch wrote:It is also perfectly legal to not play him because he is modeling for advantage.

Modeling for advantage does not apply. He's using a legal and unaltered model... no modeling has happened. He bought it, let him use it... if your army falls based on two Trukks, I don't think the fault is the ork player's.

Also what if the guy is just starting out and that's all he can afford at this time. Wouldn't we be the tools for saying "in not gonna play you because you don't have the newest model". That guy would quickly be asked to leave my FLGS. 'Friendly' being the key word.

nkelsch wrote:Gorkamorka trukks are abusive and have no place as trukks in 5th edition and I am a ork player who has 50k+ of orks and almost every ork vehicle ever made.

The grace period is over, it is time to update your trukks and battlewagons fellas. No reason to have skateboards and 12"x24" tanks on the table.

Glad you can afford it. I have a new Trukk that pieces snap off when my cat sneezes and 3 older Trukks that I dump out of a sack and have lasted forever. I paid for and painted my older Trukks, and I don't pull no shenanigans. I'll play with my perfectly legal Trukks as long as I feel like.

nkelsch wrote:It is also perfectly legal to not play him because he is modeling for advantage.

Gorkamorka trukks are abusive and have no place as trukks in 5th edition and I am a ork player who has 50k+ of orks and almost every ork vehicle ever made.

The grace period is over, it is time to update your trukks and battlewagons fellas. No reason to have skateboards and 12"x24" tanks on the table.

Yes, you're right. There is an officially sanctioned GW upgrade period after which you must replace your older models with newer ones because.... oh, wait. No, no there isn't. At all.

insaniak wrote:The Gorkamorka trukk was also the regular 40K Ork trukk for quite a few years.

The rules don't require you to update your models to the newest version. So yes, it's perfectly legal to use the smaller trukk, and screen it with the newer one.

Given how fragile Trukks are, it doesn't really seem like that big a deal. Particularly since, thanks to the magic of perspective, if he was using a full size trukk for his Nobs, he would generally still be able to hide it behind the Boyz' trukk.

This is true, if he had 2 models the same size, the model hiding behind the front would still be hidden! Doesn't make alot of difference. He could use the same technique!

I have only one Trukk (as I haven't bought any new models since I started playing again (busy trying to paint up my old ones!) and only have the old one.

...unless your opponent has a valkyrie, vendetta or a storm raven, or has placed any model on a higher level of a ruin. In all those cases, a model hiding behind another of the same size would be visible.

In any case, those gorka morka trukks are citadel space ork trukks, and thus legit models for any Warhammer40k game. TO are free to enforce any rules they wish, including forcing everyone to wear funny hats.

Rule of Cool can be a factor in reverse, though, even in friendly games. If I've got the choice between playing against someone with unappealing models which may be giving them a tactical advantage, or someone else, all other factors being equal I know which is more appealing.

Even back when the Gorkamorka trukk was the only official model I knew a number of Ork players who thought it was too small and converted all theirs to be bigger. Most of the Ork players I've encountered since the new model use the new model, and have retired the old ones or converted them to buggies.

Agreed. You are perfectly within your right to use that model for as long as you want and I am perfectly within my right to ask you to count it as a normal sized model or not play you.

Jidmah wrote:...unless your opponent has a valkyrie, vendetta or a storm raven, or has placed any model on a higher level of a ruin. In all those cases, a model hiding behind another of the same size would be visible.

In any case, those gorka morka trukks are citadel space ork trukks, and thus legit models for any Warhammer40k game. TO are free to enforce any rules they wish, including forcing everyone to wear funny hats.

didn't think about that!

I like the idea of wearing funny hats, I might make that a house rule

Mannahnin wrote:Rule of Cool can be a factor in reverse, though, even in friendly games. If I've got the choice between playing against someone with unappealing models which may be giving them a tactical advantage, or someone else, all other factors being equal I know which is more appealing.

Even back when the Gorkamorka trukk was the only official model I knew a number of Ork players who thought it was too small and converted all theirs to be bigger. Most of the Ork players I've encountered since the new model use the new model, and have retired the old ones or converted them to buggies.

That old trukk isn't much more ugly than the current buggy. Would you refuse to play someone because he didn't convert his buggies from deff koptaz?

Lobukia wrote:

nkelsch wrote:It is also perfectly legal to not play him because he is modeling for advantage.

Modeling for advantage does not apply. He's using a legal and unaltered model... no modeling has happened. He bought it, let him use it... if your army falls based on two Trukks, I don't think the fault is the ork player's.

Exactly! Of course, my Trukks (when finished) will be twice the length of a normal one. Rule of Cool will get me by though.

Jidmah wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Rule of Cool can be a factor in reverse, though, even in friendly games. If I've got the choice between playing against someone with unappealing models which may be giving them a tactical advantage, or someone else, all other factors being equal I know which is more appealing.

Even back when the Gorkamorka trukk was the only official model I knew a number of Ork players who thought it was too small and converted all theirs to be bigger. Most of the Ork players I've encountered since the new model use the new model, and have retired the old ones or converted them to buggies.

That old trukk isn't much more ugly than the current buggy. Would you refuse to play someone because he didn't convert his buggies from deff koptaz?

The appeal isn't purely aesthetic. The appeal is also the fact that it is a tactical modelling advantage and the player clearly knows it.. If someone assembled all of his buggies with deffkoptas so that they were flat on the ground and only stuck up about 0.5" or found all of the kneeling sculpts for his army so that he could get cover for all his models easier, it would be much the same.

I understand avoiding modelling for advantage but I refuse to spend money to model for a disadvantage.

Besides in many scenarios its a disadvantage to have a little truck. So it REALLY REALLY doesn't make a difference. I'd much rather spend the money on buying other cool models than replacing ones that I already have and are way more reliable than the new trucks

vercingatorix wrote:I understand avoiding modelling for advantage but I refuse to spend money to model for a disadvantage.

Besides in many scenarios its a disadvantage to have a little truck. So it REALLY REALLY doesn't make a difference. I'd much rather spend the money on buying other cool models than replacing ones that I already have and are way more reliable than the new trucks

When is it a disadvantage? I guarantee the advantage of not getting shot at outweighs any disadvantages of a tiny trukk.

And if you don't want to buy a new one, that's cool, I understand frugality. I'm sure you have a pretty rockin' bits box (as most ork players do), bulk that bad boy out a bit so it better matches the profile of a 'real' trukk.

Heck, half the reason to play orks is not to just use stock models...

Examples:

Mannahnin wrote:What pretre said. It's legal, but the size disparity is SO great that this is one of the few instances where many players object to the old model. Some large tournaments actually require it to be replaced by or treated as the current model size.

nkelsch wrote:The grace period is over, it is time to update your trukks and battlewagons fellas.

If they do this consistently, for all armies, then I have no issue with that. You have the old chimeras? Old hellhounds? Old rhinos? (They're smaller than the new ones. Don't you still use old rhinos Mannahnin?) Old marines, for that matter. Yeah, let's make this hobby more expensive by forcing everyone to completely replace any models that GW decided to redo.

No, on second thought, screw that. If someone bought a model from GW, they have a right to use it. Even if that gives them an advantage.

nkelsch wrote:
Gorkamorka trukks are abusive and have no place as trukks in 5th edition

You think the old ones are too small? I think the new ones are too big. The trukks are AV 10 and nearly the size of a battlewagon. They're bigger than rhinos. 5th ed cut their speed by 25%, every other army got a discount on their transports, but trukks cost more than they did in the old codex. They lost the ability to take any save at all (used to be able to take armour plates for a 6+ save), got the price of red paint and grot riggers doubled, and now have to exist in a metagame where everyone is packing a million ways to kill light vehicles.

There's a reason that you don't see competitive trukk rush armies. It's because they're not. Orks have a handful of reasonable builds, and none of them feature more than one trukk, usually kept in reserve or hidden by wagons. If you could still move fast enough to get to terrain that could hide you, like you could in 4th ed, then maybe I'd be more on board with the 'that trukk is too small' mentality. But in 5th, where there is no area terrain to hide behind, and you're moving 18" because fast isn't as fast if you're not a skimmer means you're caught in the open more often than not. No . Let them use the small trukks; realistically, it isn't going to make them any better.

nkelsch wrote:
and I am a ork player who has 50k+ of orks and almost every ork vehicle ever made.

Well, I guess that means you were able to afford to upgrade all yours. There are a lot of gamers who don't have that luxury.

Redbeard wrote:If they do this consistently, for all armies, then I have no issue with that. You have the old chimeras? Old hellhounds? Old rhinos? (They're smaller than the new ones. Don't you still use old rhinos Mannahnin?) Old marines, for that matter. Yeah, let's make this hobby more expensive by forcing everyone to completely replace any models that GW decided to redo.

If you re-read what M said, you'll see that he was talking about the size of the size disparity. It is huge. We're talking difference between RT Avatar and new Avatar huge. We're not saying completely replace your army but at least make some effort to update your minis and if you're not doing that, at least don't try to gain advantage by the fact you have the old minis. This guy has both and clearly is using the old ones to his advantage.

Nice wheelz

pretre wrote:
Heck, half the reason to play orks is not to just use stock models...

Or, it used to be. Before everyone got their panties in a bunch and started whining that any deviation from normal must be an advantage. I did a battlewagon conversion for adepticon last year, where I was very careful to maintain the width and length of the new kit, but put wheels on it that raised it another inch off the ground, making it even harder to hide behind something. I got nasty comments from opponents that I must have done that for an advantage, in spite of not having anything I was hiding behind it.

The attitude of other players sure takes a lot of fun out of doing cool stuff.

Also, as someone that runs old rhinos sometimes, I would clearly give you the benefit of the new profile if you asked for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I got nasty comments from opponents that I must have done that for an advantage, in spite of not having anything I was hiding behind it.

The attitude of other players sure takes a lot of fun out of doing cool stuff.

Wait, so other players are dicks sometimes? No way.

I'm sure we can agree that there is a difference between a conversion that looks cool and is unique and simply using a smaller model and putting no work into it.

pretre wrote:
If you re-read what M said, you'll see that he was talking about the size of the size disparity. It is huge. We're talking difference between RT Avatar and new Avatar huge.

No, I saw that. And it is a big disparity. I just disagree that it is all that important.

We're not saying completely replace your army but at least make some effort to update your minis and if you're not doing that, at least don't try to gain advantage by the fact you have the old minis. This guy has both and clearly is using the old ones to his advantage.

I have to replace enough of my armies due to GW's rules changes. I've got thousands of points of chaos models that are no longer legal (Emperor's Children terminators and bikes that cannot be WYSIWYG anymore, looted ork tanks that you cannot use anymore, and so on). I'll be damned if I have to replace models that still have a place in the codex because you think they're giving me an advantage. With a non-competitive unit to boot.

Don't even know why this is an issue. Its AV10 and the most it can ever get is a 4+ cover save. All you have to do is blow up the trukk. Don't you have any weapons greater or equal to strength 5? Hell basic infantry weapons can glance it on a 6.

Redbeard wrote:I have to replace enough of my armies due to GW's rules changes. I've got thousands of points of chaos models that are no longer legal (Emperor's Children terminators and bikes that cannot be WYSIWYG anymore, looted ork tanks that you cannot use anymore, and so on). I'll be damned if I have to replace models that still have a place in the codex because you think they're giving me an advantage. With a non-competitive unit to boot.

That's kind of the way of the hobby. We all have tons of models that don't work the way they used to or aren't WYSIWYG anymore. I'm sorry that you have more, but that's the way of it. Part of playing games is making sure that your army functions in the current book.

I strongly doubt that you have stock gorkamorka trukks in your army, but if you did, I would ask you to bulk them out or at least count them as the correct size in our games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gpfunk wrote:Don't even know why this is an issue. Its AV10 and the most it can ever get is a 4+ cover save. All you have to do is blow up the trukk. Don't you have any weapons greater or equal to strength 5? Hell basic infantry weapons can glance it on a 6.

if you can't draw LOS to the trukk, you can't blow it up, is the point. The OP wrote that the player was hiding it completely behind another trukk. Something that would be pretty hard to do with a real sized trukk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, note that both M and I mentioned 'counting the models as the correct size' during the game several times as an option. If the guy can't / won't replace them, he can certainly count them as the correct size if LOS issues come up to be fair to his opponent.

Even today, you can get those gorka morka trukks dirt cheap of ebay, mostly because they are also dirt ugly. Last time I had an eye on one, it went cheaper than a new trukk which had brocken-off bits.

I strongly doubt that you have stock gorkamorka trukks in your army, but if you did, I would ask you to bulk them out or at least count them as the correct size in our games.

So, where is that "correct size" noted? Asking your opponent to do so would be just as ridiculous as him asking you to count all your models as twice as tall for no reason whatsoever.
If your opponent offers you to count them that way, that's good sportsmanship, but it's not something you can force them to do.

Jidmah wrote:So, where is that "correct size" noted? Asking your opponent to do so would be just as ridiculous as him asking you to count all your models as twice as tall for no reason whatsoever.
If your opponent offers you to count them that way, that's good sportsmanship, but it's not something you can force them to do.

Well, in the case of the player in the OP, the correct size would be the other trukk he has in his army that is the newer model.

pretre wrote:
That's kind of the way of the hobby. We all have tons of models that don't work the way they used to or aren't WYSIWYG anymore. I'm sorry that you have more, but that's the way of it. Part of playing games is making sure that your army functions in the current book.

It does.

I strongly doubt that you have stock gorkamorka trukks in your army, but if you did, I would ask you to bulk them out or at least count them as the correct size in our games.

And I would refuse, and I would be justified in doing so. They're already painted, they're "done". I'm not tacking crap onto finished models just to please you, or anyone else. If you believe I get such a significant advantage from using these models that you would then refuse to play the game, that's on you. My models are GW legal as is. (as are old terminators on 25mm bases, for that matter).

Also, note that both M and I mentioned 'counting the models as the correct size' during the game several times as an option. If the guy can't / won't replace them, he can certainly count them as the correct size if LOS issues come up to be fair to his opponent.

Show me in any rulebook where TLOS includes pretending your model is a different size than what it is. For that matter, show me anywhere that any rulebook refers to 'correct' size. My models ARE the correct size. They were sold by Games Workshop as Ork Trukks. They were packaged as Warhammer 40k Ork Trukks, not even gorkamorka. How is that not correct.

pretre wrote:

Jidmah wrote:So, where is that "correct size" noted? Asking your opponent to do so would be just as ridiculous as him asking you to count all your models as twice as tall for no reason whatsoever.
If your opponent offers you to count them that way, that's good sportsmanship, but it's not something you can force them to do.

Well, in the case of the player in the OP, the correct size would be the other trukk he has in his army that is the newer model.

How is one trukk more correct than the other? Both are original citadel models. Which fire warriors are the correct ones? The prone ones or the standing ones? What correct size does a looted wagon have? Is the nob raising his big choppa into the air the correct size, or the one holding it in front of his body? Is an AOBR kopta the correct size or the metal kopta still on the shelves at my FLGS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, redbeard beat me to it.

Redbeard wrote:And I would refuse, and I would be justified in doing so. They're already painted, they're "done". I'm not tacking crap onto finished models just to please you, or anyone else. If you believe I get such a significant advantage from using these models that you would then refuse to play the game, that's on you. My models are GW legal as is. (as are old terminators on 25mm bases, for that matter).

Show me in any rulebook where TLOS includes pretending your model is a different size than what it is. For that matter, show me anywhere that any rulebook refers to 'correct' size. My models ARE the correct size. They were sold by Games Workshop as Ork Trukks. They were packaged as Warhammer 40k Ork Trukks, not even gorkamorka. How is that not correct.

Fair enough. If you want to play old models, or models on old bases, that's perfectly within your right. You bought the models, afterall.

You are very set in your opinion on this and I'm not going to change it. Simply know that players that not all events or players may agree with your take on things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:How is one trukk more correct than the other? Both are original citadel models. Which fire warriors are the correct ones? The prone ones or the standing ones? What correct size does a looted wagon have? Is the nob raising his big choppa into the air the correct size, or the one holding it in front of his body? Is an AOBR kopta the correct size or the metal kopta still on the shelves at my FLGS?

Most of those have a minimal difference in size. The difference between old and new trukk is significant in the same way that the different between RT Avatar and new Avatar is significant. Of course they are both valid models that can be used, but it is clear that an advantage is derived from using the older, smaller models.

pretre wrote:
Simply know that players that not all events or players may agree with your take on things.

I'm well aware But sometimes, someone has to carry the banner for those of us who want to have fun, rather than quibble about what is really a very negligible benefit on a non-competitive model. Someone has to take the stand and say, yes, it's okay to have that advantage, because otherwise, the only opinion being voiced is the one that tells people that they need to buy new models, that they need to spend more money, and they have to buy into the mentality that anything different has to be unfair, or a reason to avoid a game.

I don't think that's what this game was designed for. I think, I really believe, that these rules exist so that two people can put down the models they own and play a game with them. And that while it is possible to abuse some concepts (like putting grots on 60mm bases), for the most part, no one actually goes to the extremes needed to break the game. Whether a terminator is on a 40mm base or a 25mm base is largely irrelevant. Sure, some people will point out that you have a bigger deepstrike footprint one way, or a slightly bigger charge distance when disembarking, but when you get down to it, these are not big deals. That extra 15mm just isn't a big deal in comparison to the actual tactical decisions the players make, and if it causes a charge to succeed where it otherwise would have failed (or vice versa), that's not the real issue, the real issue is that your opponent left his guys close enough for it to matter.

Likewise with these trukks. The smaller trukk is easier to hide. It's harder to hide other things behind though. It provides a smaller crater when it explodes, meaning the survivors are more likely to get gunned down. It doesn't screen other units as well, and isn't tall enough to provide 4+ cover to a battlewagon, the way the new model can. For every advantage modelling can provide in one direction, it can be a liability in the other. Your classic kneeling wraithlord is less likely to see his targets, and more likely to grant them a cover save because of his lowered vantage point.

Quibbling over these things is just another example of taking a tournament mentality to a game that has never been designed for tournament play. Why this would matter at all in a pick-up game is beyond me.

Redbeard wrote:I'm well aware But sometimes, someone has to carry the banner for those of us who want to have fun, rather than quibble about what is really a very negligible benefit on a non-competitive model. Someone has to take the stand and say, yes, it's okay to have that advantage, because otherwise, the only opinion being voiced is the one that tells people that they need to buy new models, that they need to spend more money, and they have to buy into the mentality that anything different has to be unfair, or a reason to avoid a game.

I was trying to let this go, but you are twisting my argument. I was championing not having to buy new models or spend more money. As well, since when are you the arbiter of what is fun?

Quibbling over these things is just another example of taking a tournament mentality to a game that has never been designed for tournament play. Why this would matter at all in a pick-up game is beyond me.

Specifically because the player in the OP is trying to use it to his advantage to win against the OP. He made it about winning, not about fun. If they guy had reversed the order of the trukks, I wouldn't have called him a tool.

Seriously though, I understand where you're coming from, but we will probably not agree on this. I think that part of the hobby is updating your bases, your models, your WYSIWYG, etc. I put a lot of effort into it, because I believe that is a courtesy to my opponent. You believe that you should be able to play with whatever models you have and that you shouldn't have to arbitrarily update them based on changes in GW's rules. We disagree.

edit: I would also never intentionally use older models, bases, etc to my advantage in a game, which I think is really what this thread is about.

pretre wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Quibbling over these things is just another example of taking a tournament mentality to a game that has never been designed for tournament play. Why this would matter at all in a pick-up game is beyond me.

Specifically because the player in the OP is trying to use it to his advantage to win against the OP. He made it about winning, not about fun. If they guy had reversed the order of the trukks, I wouldn't have called him a tool.

This is the key, IMO. Everyone is free to use crazy conversions, or old models, or models on old bases, or anything else that they want. But, the moment you intentionally use those differences in order to win the game, you've crossed the line.

I have an old metal Deff Dread and a new plastic one. The older one is smaller. Both have character and both I've painted and converted to match my tastes and army. One I bought before the new model existed, one after.

Why should anyone look down on me and my army for having a smaller, easier to hide model purely because GW decided they wanted to make more money?

Miraclefish wrote:I have an old metal Deff Dread and a new plastic one. The older one is smaller. Both have character and both I've painted and converted to match my tastes and army. One I bought before the new model existed, one after.

Why should anyone look down on me and my army for having a smaller, easier to hide model purely because GW decided they wanted to make more money?

OMG. No one is looking down on you and for most minis, having the old version isn't a big deal. I have a mix of old and new minis in a lot of my armies. But for some models, the difference is very significant. You can literallly hide the gorkamorka trukk behind grots or boys and get cover for it.

The difference between old and new Deff Dread is negligible compared to that.

Maybe the guy in the OP only has a handful of trukks. He wants to run them and realizes that they are more survivable if he puts the smaller legal one behind the bigger legal one. Good on him, he is thinking with taktiks!

He is perfectly within his right to do so; both are GW/Citadel models without conversions, literally put together per the instructions. There is no reason for him to be forced to upgrade/bulk out his trukk or even pretend it is bigger.

He is not modeling for advantage, he is finding way to make his models work better for him.

-cgmckenzie

What if he bought the old one on ebay specifically because it's smaller, with the intention of hiding it behind the more recent mini?

I'm all for people using old minis, but using size creep for gamesmanship is pretty underhanded imo

I think that it is EXTREMELY dishonorable for GW not to allow old models to be fielded. If there is an issue about competitive play, they should at least update the profile for these older models to reflect their smaller sizes or lack of certain upgrades. It is not that hard to do. I also have a lot of issues regarding the mentality of some 40K players demanding models to be upgraded to the latest version or accusing other players of taking advantages. Orks are never highly competitive no matter how you look or what advantage you are trying to take. If you lose the game to an Ork player, you deserve it.

wildger wrote:I think that it is EXTREMELY dishonorable for GW not to allow old models to be fielded.

GW doesn't have a position on the old trukk. It is EXTREMELY weird that your attributing this position to GW.

If you lose the game to an Ork player, you deserve it.

Umm. You know Orks are still a pretty competitive army, right?

His attributing to GW is from people demanding the guy in the OP to update his trukks. That is not based on any rules or edict from GW. If the company came out and said that old models are disallowed, people here would have a leg to stand on.

As it is, they are just getting upset because somebody brought a model that is different than ones they accounted for when building their lists.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:His attributing to GW is from people demanding the guy in the OP to update his trukks. That is not based on any rules or edict from GW. If the company came out and said that old models are disallowed, people here would have a leg to stand on.

Now you are reaaaaally mixed up.

1) We are not GW. Attributing our remarks to GW is silly.
2) The OP was complaining about someone else using the old trukk not himself.
3) You probably need to go back and read through the thread a bit.

As it is, they are just getting upset because somebody brought a model that is different than ones they accounted for when building their lists.

Umm. That doesn't even make sense.

I just don't see why everyone is so upset about this. There is no clear advantage to begin with: Yes, the tiny trukk can hide behind the larger truck, but then it's that much harder to hide behind the tiny truck. There is balance.

azazel the cat wrote:I just don't see why everyone is so upset about this. There is no clear advantage to begin with: Yes, the tiny trukk can hide behind the larger truck, but then it's that much harder to hide behind the tiny truck. There is balance.

Except one trukk is more important than the other. One has boyz, one has nobz.

You can claim 'gamers rights', your models will still be disallowed from most tourneys, especially if you mix model sizes. You may have your 25mm terminators, but the second you mix them with 40mm terminators people will begin to resist.

We all know what is reasonable, we all know what base sizes are seen as fair for models and we all know when someone is abusing an oversized/undersized model.

Gorkamorka trukks were designed for 10 models 10 years ago. Just because it is called a trukk doesn't mean it is a 5th edition trukk or that it is fair as one. It makes a great buggie though which is a very reasonable position.

Many TOs enforce size standards because it does matter and does impact games. When thousands of dollars are on the line it is unreasonable to have people playing with tactics which are based solely upon model size of old models. It introduces something into the metagame which shouldn't be there.

I call BS on this 'advantages balance the disadvantages' Humans are not stupid. Really? the bigger trukk can't hide behind the little trukk? Really? So You really think the player will be screening his trukk buyz with his nobz 50 % of the time so it balances out? no he will be screening his nobz with his trukk boyz 100% of the time mitigating that perceived disadvantage by being smaller. maximizing the cheaty advantages and not being at all impacted by the disadvantages.

Cheaty battlewagons and gorka trukks are basically removed from competative play, as they should be. Most FLGS groups have removed them as well. If you really have to force them upon people, knock yourself out... This game would be better off with a 'base/size' stat to be forced upon players in the codex to avoid situations like this.

edit: I also disagree that trukks are non-competative... Having trukks that could be zero LOS behind 1" shrubs would be gamebreaking in my opinion and an unfair advantage.

nkelsch wrote:I call BS on this 'advantages balance the disadvantages' Humans are not stupid. Really? the bigger trukk can't hide behind the little trukk? Really? So You really think the player will be screening his trukk buyz with his nobz 50 % of the time so it balances out? no he will be screening his nobz with his trukk boyz 100% of the time mitigating that perceived disadvantage by being smaller. maximizing the cheaty advantages and not being at all impacted by the disadvantages.

The point was more that people are focusing on that one specific advantage, and ignoring the disadvantages that come with it. Yes, it's slightly easier to screen (although I suspect that if people actually did a comparison on the table, that actual difference screening an old trukk vs a new one would be very minor... but there are a whole slew of disadvantages to using transports with a smaller footprint.

Cheaty battlewagons and gorka trukks are basically removed from competative play, as they should be. Most FLGS groups have removed them as well.

I would be interested in seeing just what you're basing that on...

insaniak wrote:The point was more that people are focusing on that one specific advantage, and ignoring the disadvantages that come with it. Yes, it's slightly easier to screen (although I suspect that if people actually did a comparison on the table, that actual difference screening an old trukk vs a new one would be very minor... but there are a whole slew of disadvantages to using transports with a smaller footprint.

The real problem is that you can screen a gorka truck behind something as small as grots. I just did it, but my stupid phone camera isn't uploading right now.

insaniak wrote:

Cheaty battlewagons and gorka trukks are basically removed from competative play, as they should be. Most FLGS groups have removed them as well.

I would be interested in seeing just what you're basing that on...

I have seen gorkatrukks and oversized battlewagons disqualified from almost every event I have attended in the past 2 years. Places it wasn't disqualified, TOs forced them to play as if they were the modern size. Even Nova had to enforce some sizes based upon stock models on an ork army this year. Multiple reports of Oversized BWs being disqualified from 'ard boyz too.

I still call BS on the 'oh no, so many disadvantages' because they don't apply and the advantage is drastic and intended. Like 60mm ghaz gaining almost a full inch to his assaults when disembarking. Any perceived disadvantages are never balanced out because they never apply. Acknowledging the advantage and not trying to take advantage of it is the correct way to handle it. Eliminate the impact on the game.

nkelsch wrote:
I have seen gorkatrukks and oversized battlewagons disqualified from almost every event I have attended in the past 2 years. Places it wasn't disqualified, TOs forced them to play as if they were the modern size. Even Nova had to enforce some sizes based upon stock models on an ork army this year. Multiple reports of Oversized BWs being disqualified from 'ard boyz too.

So, you're saying that because a handful of TOs caved in to a bunch of whiners, that the models I bought from GW should be thrown out.

I still call BS on the 'oh no, so many disadvantages' because they don't apply and the advantage is drastic and intended. Like 60mm ghaz gaining almost a full inch to his assaults when disembarking. Any perceived disadvantages are never balanced out because they never apply. Acknowledging the advantage and not trying to take advantage of it is the correct way to handle it. Eliminate the impact on the game.

This stuff isn't designed for its impact on the game, it's designed for what looks cool. I have wraithlords and killa kans that came on 40mm bases, because when they were sold in a blister, that is the size base that fit in the blister. I also have wraithlords and killa kans on 60mm bases, because when they put them in a box instead of a blister, they went with what fit the new model. These decisions weren't made with game balance in mind, they were made with what looked better. Only after the fact do you over-competitive types feel the need to analyze what possible advantages could stem from the differences and call people cheaters if they use what they had.

You can look at how the bases on the new flyer models needed a million FAQ pages to see just how little interest GW games design has in the base sizes. You would think, if base size was a game design decision, that it would have come up when they were playtesting the valkyries. But it didn't. They released them with essentially unknown rules because the base size simply wasn't a factor in the design of the rules for the model.

The new trukks are bigger, not because of any great thought put into how they'd work in the game, but because the model looks awfully cool. But I've got some cool looking old ones too, with conversions and the like. They're still GW models, that I bought to play GWs game. I've yet to see any GW store disallow them - would be a bad precedent don't you think...

Red, if you're going to be dismissive and call people negative things like "over-competitive" because they disagree with you, it's not going to be a productive discussion. If you're going to resort to questionably false dichotomies like saying the only choices are to allow Gorka trukks at will or to throw them out, again, that's not going to get us very far.

As you know, several of the big events (including Adepticon) have started ruling that nonstandard models will be played like the standard model if it becomes a question. The issue of wider-front battlewagons actually came up this year. If your opinion is that they were caving to "whiners" by doing that, you are welcome to that opinion. But I think they did it for reasonable cause.

Mannahnin wrote:Red, if you're going to be dismissive and call people negative things like "over-competitive" because they disagree with you, it's not going to be a productive discussion. If you're going to resort to questionably false dichotomies like saying the only choices are to allow Gorka trukks at will or to throw them out, again, that's not going to get us very far.

As you know, several of the big events (including Adepticon) have started ruling that nonstandard models will be played like the standard model if it becomes a question. The issue of wider-front battlewagons actually came up this year. If your opinion is that they were caving to "whiners" by doing that, you are welcome to that opinion. But I think they did it for reasonable cause.

Is it possible for someone to appreciate old models and respect the competitive environment and how people who may not see your gorka trukk as nostalgia but as game wrecking may have a valid point. I took an epic gobsmasha to NOVA this year, and it was a boomwagon.

I play orks.

I have BWs which are oversized. I have basically retired all but one because they are simply to big. They are battlefortresses now. I am going to build new ones next year and run a battlewagon bash for the tourney season.

I have Gorkatrukks. They are now buggies because they are unreasonably too small. Last year was my 'trukk' year and I updated to the new trukks. This year I magnetized all my Kanz, old and new.

Model size impacts the game. Basesize impacts the game. Orks for a long time got away with massive BWs and dinky trukks and now people really don't appreciate it, and I see valid reasons why they would question them. Almost *NEVER* is the reason someone is using a gorkatrukk is because he is a poor ork player who has nothing else but gorka trukks and it is all he has and is stuck with it. I cannot tell you the last time I saw a real ork collector with a well-painted gorka trukk either for 'nostalgia' sake. These myths are just that. The only people who own the gorka trukks anymore are people who collect orks and have the new trukks or people trying to abuse them for advantage. Both I think are reasonable to tell the players to treat them as the full-sized new plastic kit for both footprint and LOS.

I mean if you are really all about nostalgia, you don't care about the advantages right? The honest way is to not gain any advantage or disadvantage and treat them as the full-sized kit for all gameplay purposes. Gaming the advantages while touting some disadvantages (oh no, the big shoota on my trukk has no LOS! OH NOES!) which never impact your chosen tactic is lame gamesmanship.

Almost every event I have seen bans them or makes ork players treat the vehicle as the exact size of the modern plastics for gameplay. It is even in the tourney FAQs.

Mannahnin wrote:Red, if you're going to be dismissive and call people negative things like "over-competitive" because they disagree with you, it's not going to be a productive discussion.

And yet it is acceptable for them to call me a cheater for my views?

If you're going to resort to questionably false dichotomies like saying the only choices are to allow Gorka trukks at will or to throw them out, again, that's not going to get us very far.

But that's where this is headed. Oh, ok, I could use them as buggies... except they're not WYSIWYG as buggies, so that's an issue there. Or I can ruin my models by gluing more crap to them so that they're the size someone else thinks they should be. Or 'pretend' they're bigger. How does that work? If I don't have a new one with me, and my opponent doesn't have one, do we just guess what the size and height should be?

In short, all three of these options are telling me that I'm not allowed to play by the rules in the book (TLOS, WYSIWYG) with the models I bought at the GW store. If I can't play with them, how is it incorrect to imply that they're now worthless?

As you know, several of the big events (including Adepticon) have started ruling that nonstandard models will be played like the standard model if it becomes a question. The issue of wider-front battlewagons actually came up this year. If your opinion is that they were caving to "whiners" by doing that, you are welcome to that opinion. But I think they did it for reasonable cause.

Your chaos/dark angels had the old rhinos in them, didn't it? Or am I misremembering? Have you replaced them yet? Do you keep a new one around in case someone wants to make sure you're using the new dimensions? How do you handle the "it would be this big" issue?

nkelsch wrote:
I mean if you are really all about nostalgia, you don't care about the advantages right? The honest way is to not gain any advantage or disadvantage and treat them as the full-sized kit for all gameplay purposes. Gaming the advantages while touting some disadvantages (oh no, the big shoota on my trukk has no LOS! OH NOES!) which never impact your chosen tactic is lame gamesmanship.

Almost every event I have seen bans them or makes ork players treat the vehicle as the exact size of the modern plastics for gameplay. It is even in the tourney FAQs.

It's not about nostalgia for me, it's about attitude. It's about people treating a game about playing with toy soldiers - a very poorly written and unbalanced game, I might add - as some competitive utopia instead of as the game it is meant to be, and forcing this viewpoint on others. It used to be that conversions were something to be respected, that having old models was a sign of being old-school. Now, everything is interpreted as seeking an unfair advantage. If you make a conversion, you better not make it so cool that it needs a slightly larger base. If you've got cool old models, you better replace/upgrade them.

It's about seeing the tournament scene go from an environment where people went to have fun pushing toys around the table, where you'd see all sorts of things, and crazy conversions, to one where you see the same parking lots over and over and diverging from the established builds and model sizes is looked down on.

I acknowledge that there are advantages, and that you can use the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages. But, in my view of the game, the one stated above, where the game is about pushing toy soldiers around in a largely unbalanced and broken ruleset, those advantages just aren't that important, and they're not worth the fuss being made of them. Especially when comparing trukks to venoms or purifiers or long fangs.

No one called you a cheater, R.

Not directly. It has been implied, many times, throughout this thread. Biased language, such as 'cheaty battlewagons' has been bandied about as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone were calling you a cheater (which no one did), it still doesn't justify sinking to the same level. Nleksh gets a little hot under the collar and unnecessarily hostile in a lot of posts. No need to do the same.

Anyway, you seem to be taking onto yourself the sins of others.

As you are aware, a difference in attitude and behavior is often easily observed between a player who is trying to garner an inappropriate advantage through use of nonstandard models, and someone who's using old stuff but not trying to chisel for advantage.

I haven't replaced the old Rhinos in my Fallen army yet. I like how they create a contrast in size with the Predator. If rules requiring smaller models to be played like the current ones become more common, I'll undoubtedly update at some point. I had picked up a couple of kits for the purpose but at the moment they're slated for use in my in-progress Blood Angels army, which is using all current kits. There's still not a huge difference in size between them, but if an opponent objects I'll err on the side of not having cover. The disparity with Trukks is massive.

But what do I know? I'm apparently someone who doesn't want to have fun, and prefers to quibble.

@Insaniak: thank you for being the only person to get the point that I apparently buried pretty deep in my last post.

Back on topic.
A question: Has any official GW tournament ever banned the use of the old school Trukks? I would be very surprised to here that they ever have, simply because of the dangerous and profit-killing precedent that it sets. If GW bans their old model, then nobody will ever buy another model from GW, because they've got no security in knowing that it will not become worthless a day later. I'm sure there are plenty of Necron players with Pariah-heavy armies that don't plan on buying any more models from GW. (okay, well I'm sure there's gotta be at least one person that had a Pariah-heavy army)

Now, I think that a really important point that some people are missing is just how game-impacting this instance is. Certainly, the Trukk issue is the hyperbole of this argument in general- I think it represents the greatest difference in size between the old and new models. And since we are entirely speaking about competitive games here (I hope nobody is raising this issue in friendly games, because that instantly makes you TFG) I think we should really ask the question of just how game-breaking the small Trukk hidden in cover actually is. Now, I don't play Orks, and my experience playing against them is limited. So honestly, I ask: just how likely to win or lose the game is this particular tactic in an Ork army? And I ask this question in the context of the Orks playing against a competitive list- GK Psyriflemen or SW cookie-cutter lists or an IG parking lot. Really, what kind of difference will this tactic make?

The reason I ask, is because if this extreme situation with the Ork Trukks is not damaging enough to wreck an entire game, then I think that the rule of cool should obviously take precedence over any slight advantage. (I consider ancient models to be cool, despite how ugly they usually are.)

Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Mannahnin wrote:Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics. Its very reminiscent of how looted and ramshackle Trukks should look and operate on the Battlefield, not factory perfect mimicry.

Game wise, I think two perfectly legal models can be used any way that the player wishes to use them. It is not 'modeling for advantage' when the models are unconverted GW. Good on him for using unorthodox and the totally legal rules to his advantage. At least he didn't sell out with Gray Knights.

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

If you could hide your trukks completely behind a 1.5" tall hill, or reliably give it cover from any infantry, it would make a difference.

azazel the cat wrote: If GW bans their old model, then nobody will ever buy another model from GW, because they've got no security in knowing that it will not become worthless a day later.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest.

If GW chooses to ban a certain older model from their own tournaments, that only really has an impact on tournament play... and outside of GW's games, it's not at all unusual for gaming tournaments to limit what can and can't be used. CCG tournaments often only allow the latest few expansions, and have extensive 'banned' or limited lists of cards that are just not allowed or only allowed in certain quanitities for tournament play. Star Wars Miniatures had one miniatures that was banned from official tournaments, and I believe D&D minis had a few as well.

Speaking as someone who has one of the old trukks, and started using it as a buggy years before the new trukk was released because of its size, I would have absolutely no problem with a tournament choosing to ban outdated models that have been updated at a different size, just as I would have no problem with a tournament stipulating base sizes. To be honest, I find it surprising that this didn't happen a decade ago.

Conversely, I have no problem with using those same models in casual play, or with an opponent using those models.

Now, I think that a really important point that some people are missing is just how game-impacting this instance is. Certainly, the Trukk issue is the hyperbole of this argument in general- I think it represents the greatest difference in size between the old and new models. And since we are entirely speaking about competitive games here (I hope nobody is raising this issue in friendly games, because that instantly makes you TFG) I think we should really ask the question of just how game-breaking the small Trukk hidden in cover actually is. Now, I don't play Orks, and my experience playing against them is limited. So honestly, I ask: just how likely to win or lose the game is this particular tactic in an Ork army? And I ask this question in the context of the Orks playing against a competitive list- GK Psyriflemen or SW cookie-cutter lists or an IG parking lot. Really, what kind of difference will this tactic make?

This, I do agree with though. I made a similar point earlier.

Having said that, it doesn't change my view that it;s not a problem for tournaments to be more closely regulated.

Mannahnin wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

If you could hide your trukks completely behind a 1.5" tall hill, or reliably give it cover from any infantry, it would make a difference.

The new Trukks do get reliable cover from infantry. Even from gretchin if you put the two runherds in front of it.

50% of its front arc completely hidden? No bits visible between their legs or under their arms? Really? I'd like to see a photo.

As long as you don't bee-line them, sure. Sadly my camera fails to ever make any good photos of my orks due to bloodaxe camouflage scrambling its software (yes, really), but someone else might be able to do so.

Mannahnin wrote:Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Can a War Walker behind a Falcon legally get cover from an enemy unit on the other side? Yes. And why? Because they are two legal and unconverted GW models. You are comparing LOS and cover shenanigans from totally legal and unconverted models with modeling for advantage way back in 3rd ed. If every 20 point Space Marine on the table legally gets Force Weapons, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally. It's a game. You learn the rules and you exploit them. Just because you may not care about playing competitively does not mean that everybody should stop doing so as well.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:If every 20 point Space Marine on the table legally gets Force Weapons, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally.

Wow. Just wow.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally. It's a game. You learn the rules and you exploit them. Just because you may not care about playing competitively does not mean that everybody should stop doing so as well.

It is GAMEMANSHIP, which is frowned upon in many circles and especially at tourneys. You can play competitively without exploiting rules or lack of rules for an unintended advantage.

A question: Has any official GW tournament ever banned the use of the old school Trukks?

'ard boyz has totally banned gorka trukks and oversized custom BWs. Battlewagon bans are very common especially at 'ard boyz where people are into 'winning' and not into cool models so 'rule of cool' doesn't save converted wagons. GW has never said 'BANNED' but TOs ban them all the time.

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics

Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

I can name a page where this is not allowed. It is called PAGE 3. And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

nkelsch wrote:
'ard boyz has totally banned gorka trukks and oversized custom BWs.

Can you provide a reference for this? I didn't think 'ard boyz was so unified as to wholly ban something like that.

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics

Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

I can name a page where this is not allowed. It is called PAGE 3.

Strange, I don't see that on page 3. Let me see, Page 3:

The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow...

Yup, my old trukks are citadel miniatures. And, that's about it on page 3. Well, except that my trukk didn't come with a base. Did you even read page three before making this claim?

I'll go one further. My rulebook has a page 225. On this page it details how players are allowed to customize their miniatures. On this page, there are examples of models on larger bases than they come with. My rulebook says nothing about such models being disallowed because they're larger or smaller than what is currently sold.

And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

I still assert that using these old models does not break the game. You have yet to produce any supporting evidence for this claim. It changes the game, yes. It gives a marginal advantage, yes. It does not break the game, the game plays just as well with the old models as with the new ones. As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

Redbeard wrote: Did you even read page three before making this claim?

You know the most important rule. The one that shows if you are being a dick, then your opponent won't play you.

And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

I still assert that using these old models does not break the game. You have yet to produce any supporting evidence for this claim. It changes the game, yes. It gives a marginal advantage, yes. It does not break the game, the game plays just as well with the old models as with the new ones. As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

You would be wrong. Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent. There is a fineline between riding model nostalgia and doing what the OP pointed out. 60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating. If you can field 60mm ghaz, then I can add +1 to all my difficult terrain rolls as well because that is basically what the oversized base accomplishes.

And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event. Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

Personally I think this whole debate is stupid. It doesn't matter if it is the older trukk or the newer one and as to having both older and newer models well some people can only afford so much at a time. As to TOs demanding deviation from the basic tournament rules regarding models (iirc 75% of each model is to be GW/Citadel, age doesn't matter, based on the bases the models are provided in package) then I will demand that the TO buy me every model I need to replace and allow me time to do a rough build before starting the tournament.

nkelsch wrote:

Redbeard wrote: Did you even read page three before making this claim?

You know the most important rule. The one that shows if you are being a dick, then your opponent won't play you.

That rule is on Page 2. :(



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I'll go one further. My rulebook has a page 225. On this page it details how players are allowed to customize their miniatures. On this page, there are examples of models on larger bases than they come with. My rulebook says nothing about such models being disallowed because they're larger or smaller than what is currently sold.

Actually, page 3 does mention scenic and larger bases and mentions opponent consent.

As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

Completely OT, but I disagree. Yes, the GK codex can break the game for Daemons, but then it loses to everyone else (shunt-spam isn't very competitive unless you feel like cockpunching a daemons player). I have seen Daemons do pretty well against GK in the BR forum. Tailoring completely screwing one army is nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saiisil wrote:. As to TOs demanding deviation from the basic tournament rules regarding models (iirc 75% of each model is to be GW/Citadel, age doesn't matter, based on the bases the models are provided in package)

Those rules don't exist. GW doesn't have 'basic tournament rules'.

then I will demand that the TO buy me every model I need to replace and allow me time to do a rough build before starting the tournament.

Or you could, you know, not go to their tournament because I guarantee no one is going to buy you models so you can play in their tournament.

nkelsch wrote:
You would be wrong. Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent.

Again, you're assuming that the model size is somehow factored into the point cost. It isn't. They've changed base-sizes for some models in between codex releases, and haven't published any errata indicating that they should now cost more, or less. Gaining an advantage that is expressly permitted in the rules is neither gamebreaking nor rude. It's expressly permitted to use citadel miniatures. (It's even expressly permitted to convert them, although this isn't at issue here.)

How you can claim that the size of a model is even remotely part of the testing and pointing process for the model, when so many are released years after the codex? The official ork battlewagon wasn't even around when the codex was released, let alone when they were developing it. That it's three inches wide by seven inches long is just how it was made, not an integral part of the price of the vehicle.

Lets say they release a new buggy next year. The codex isn't being redone next year. Does that mean I should vacate any wins I had when using the old buggies because I had an advantage I didn't pay for (and didn't even know about) at the time? Or does that mean I have to accept a disadvantage that I'm not getting a point break for? No, of course not. A new model just means a new model, and isn't a factor in the point cost.

60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating. If you can field 60mm ghaz, then I can add +1 to all my difficult terrain rolls as well because that is basically what the oversized base accomplishes.

This is a strawman. I don't know where you're getting it from. It's irrelevant in the discussion of whether my Citadel Miniature trukks are legal or gamebreaking. But, just to pose a question - suppose that when they switched to finecast, they realized that he'd look better on a larger base. This has happened with other models. Is he still gamebreaking because of their packaging decision, or is then just cooler because of it?

There are plenty of character models that are sold on bases larger than would be expected for a model of that type. Three ork upgrade characters, Snikrot, Zagstrukk, and the Captain come to mind. Each of these replace a nob - a model on a 25mm base, with the special character, supplied with a 40mm base. Surely this must be gamebreaking? Or are you saying that 15mm of base is incorporated into the cost of these models. I still claim that their base size is not even remotely a factor in the game design or point assignment process, as often, these models aren't even available when the codex is in development. All three of the upgrade characters I mention didn't have official models released with the codex, and the conversions for them usually assumed 25mm bases, based on the nob they replaced. I don't see the game breaking because of the change.

When the daemon codex was released, Seekers of Slaanesh were sold with 40mm round bases (and fantasy cav bases). Most of mine have these bases. Over two years later, they released the new plastic seekers, now with a rounded bike base. This impacts an army that has to deepstrike. Do you think the game designers knew, two years in advance, that the model designers would be coming up with a new base type - one that previously didn't exist at all - and price the seekers based on these new bike bases? No. Those bases change the game for the seekers, but they don't break it, and to claim they do is just ridiculous.

And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event.

Each 'ard boyz event is run by an independent game store, and each store is responsible for their own rules in these cases. If the independent store wants to make an extra sale by forcing players there to buy new models, I don't really see this as indicative of GW policy.

Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

That's their choice. They make a lot of decisions I don't agree with, and their interpretations of contentious rules are frequently overturned when GW finally gets around to putting out their official FAQ. (For example, the INAT Faq reversals on Lash of Submission and the tyranid doom) Just because they do something does not make it right. As has been stated many times, their rulings are more often done to avoid fights than because of what is right. It's easier to appease the 95% who either don't play orks or don't have old trukks than it is to allow them.

This discussion is relevant to my interests. Over half of my space marine vehicles are on the old rhino chassis, and my Hive Tyrant is the old 2nd edition model. The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers. Not to mention all my terminators being on 25mm bases because that's what they were supplied with.

I just go by the "It's a citadel model, it's on the right base, so it's legal" style of rules.

Carnage43 wrote:This discussion is relevant to my interests. Over half of my space marine vehicles are on the old rhino chassis, and my Hive Tyrant is the old 2nd edition model. The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers. Not to mention all my terminators being on 25mm bases because that's what they were supplied with.

I just go by the "It's a citadel model, it's on the right base, so it's legal" style of rules.

Sounds good to me.

Here's my take on small Ork Trukks:

Pros:
-Easier to gain cover saves

Cons:
-More difficult to give cover to other models
-Less width for tank-shocking

That generally seems pretty balanced to me. And as to the argument about bases, I think some of these allegations are highly dubious given that there is an actual precedent in the Space Wolves codex with Canis Wolfborn, wherein the codex expressly forbids using a larger base in order to gain an advantage with his special rules. And although not expressly stated in many of codices (Necron Wraiths using Coil Whips, for example) where the models would gain a clear advantage if they were on a larger base, generally if the oddly-sized base is still the correct base for the model, and it does not alter the power of special rules such as with Canis, then what advantage is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Back when Ork Trukk spam armies were tournament winners (which is going back to 3rd), they did often revolve around layered screening/hiding. I encountered a couple of people who converted their Trukks to impact how well they hid one another.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

Also, I don't think that anyone has answered this question without grave ambiguity get. Someone mentioned that they get an advantage in the infinitive, but never qualified whether or not that advantage actually has any effect on games versus Orks.

azazel the cat wrote:Pros:
-Easier to gain cover saves

Cons:
-More difficult to give cover to other models
-Less width for tank-shocking

Chances are your small trukks aren't tank shocking and if you're mixing them with large trucks then they don't need to give cover to other models. Those cons aren't cons if they don't actually come up.

And as to the argument about bases,

Page 3, main rulebook. It covers bases.

Also, I don't think that anyone has answered this question without grave ambiguity get. Someone mentioned that they get an advantage in the infinitive, but never qualified whether or not that advantage actually has any effect on games versus Orks.

Yes. It has an advantage in the game. Being able to choose which vehicles can or cannot be shot at by your opponent with any terrain setup is a significant advantage. Making sure that your most valuable unit is in that hide-able vehicle is definitely an advantage that allows you to pick and choose where they are going since your opponent can't remove them from their transport forceably.

Put it this way as way of comparison. I'm playing my SW. I have normal sized Razorbacks and Rhinos that I use as my front line. I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

pretre wrote:Those rules don't exist. GW doesn't have 'basic tournament rules'.

I do recall that there was something along those lines in an older rulebook, haven't really gotten into the 5th ed tournament scene.

Or you could, you know, not go to their tournament because I guarantee no one is going to buy you models so you can play in their tournament.

Point is that not all tournaments will have their rules that deviate from the base posted well enough before a tournament and will discuss things as things as they come up. In all seriousness if a TO tells someone that has showed up to the tournament paid their entrance and then was told they cant use their Official GW figs they best expect to be asked to buy that player replacement figs.

Saiisil wrote:In all seriousness if a TO tells someone that has showed up to the tournament paid their entrance and then was told they cant use their Official GW figs they best expect to be asked to buy that player replacement figs.

Not really. In fact, that is that last thing I would assume would happen, right behind handies in the alley. The first would be referring the player to the rule packet. The second would probably be an offer of a refund of entrance fee.

Being asked and actually doing are two different things. First not all tournaments have rule packets, in fact when I regularly went to tournaments the only ones that had rule packets were at conventions and the few tournaments I have been to in the last few years (all at LGS) there were no packets. The second would be reasonable yes but I wasn't saying anything about what they should do, just something they should expect from players being told that they may no use their perfectly legal by the rules of the game models.

Carnage43 wrote:The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers.

Nobody spoke to this and it seems like the exact same issue.



I can screen the one on the right with Hormagaunts. The one on the left I have to work at screening. I haven't had anyone object to using the model on the right - I've had people say they love to see it.

What's the difference? That the tiny truck is a transport? Is that what it comes down to?

nkelsch wrote:It is GAMEMANSHIP, which is frowned upon in many circles and especially at tourneys. You can play competitively without exploiting rules or lack of rules for an unintended advantage.

Then why are not railing against players who insist on fielding the current Gray Knights?

nkelsch wrote:Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

ORK CODEX, pg 100, TROOPS: DEDICATED TRANSPORT VEHICLES: TRUKK: Cost: 35 points

nkelsch wrote:Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent. There is a fineline between riding model nostalgia and doing what the OP pointed out. 60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating.

First, I paid for my Ork Trukk, glue, and paint with with real money, time, and effort. Then I used the appropriate amount of army points to pay for the use the model in my army. What did I not pay for? As for unfair and rude, I didn't write the Gray Knight Codex. Did GhazgkhulI even ever come on a 60mm base? Are you referring to an alteration of the model, or conversions done before his model was released?

nkelsch wrote:And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event. Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

If they are running their own tournaments, they can make any decisions they want on how they are going to do it. I am also glad that these organizations regulate modeling for advantage. However, I didn't model anything for any advantage or disadvantage, some GW sculptor did. I don't use 'non-standard sized models'. I use the ones out of the box.

pretre wrote:I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

Is the 1/4 tall rhino a legal, unconverted GW model? If so, why would you not get to use it?

I have been reading this discussion for a while now and for those of us who have not seen the size difference, is there anyone who can put up a ppicture with the old and new trukk next to eachother?

regards ogard

I agree with rigeld. I have an old HT, and a new HT. I also have the old 'thrope (that stood on legs and had big hands) and I have the new skinny 'thrope. In one case the older model is easier to screen, in the other (even though they are infantry) the newer one is easier to screen (what with its skinny as heck profile). All four are legal models, and I've never had anyone complain about me using them. So what exactly is the problem with old trukks vs new trukks?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Is the 1/4 tall rhino a legal, unconverted GW model? If so, why would you not get to use it?

It was an example to illustrate a point.

So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

rigeld2 wrote:So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

Transport capacity, probably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and the old trukk almost literally fits in the back of the new truck. It's like 1/4 size/mass.

rigeld2 wrote:So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

sounds like its the problem of putting nobs in the small one and boys in the big one.
Then running the nob one behind the bigger one with the boys in it so noone can shoot at it since its so much smaller.

atleast thats what i have decerned from this discussion so far.


regards ogard


edited to make the first sentence i wrote somewhat readable.

Ogard wrote:Sounds like its the problem of putting nobs in the small one and boys in the big one and running the nob one behind the other one and noone can shoot at it.
atleast thats what i have decerned from this discussion so far.

On the nose. lol

It doesn't equate to the same thing with HT. If you could use old HTs to screen new HTs and the old HT was twice as effective as the new one, that might be a cause for concern.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

Transport capacity, probably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and the old trukk almost literally fits in the back of the new truck. It's like 1/4 size/mass.

It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

And if you're going to "hate on" one old mini, you should "hate on" any of them that offer a similar "advantage", not just the one orc transport.


edit:

pretre wrote:

Ogard wrote:Sounds like its the problem of putting nobs in the small one and boys in the big one and running the nob one behind the other one and noone can shoot at it.
atleast thats what i have decerned from this discussion so far.

On the nose. lol

It doesn't equate to the same thing with HT. If you could use old HTs to screen new HTs and the old HT was twice as effective as the new one, that might be a cause for concern.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

rigeld2 wrote:It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

Footprint isn't the problem. Height is the problem. Also keep in mind that the picture you quoted is a new trukk that was not completely assembled.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

Nobs in an old trukk behind boys in a new trukk is twice as effective. That was the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

Footprint isn't the problem. Height is the problem. Also keep in mind that the picture you quoted is a new trukk that was not completely assembled.

Read the post I was replying to (hint - I quoted it). The old truck isn't going to fit in the back of the new one.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

Nobs in an old trukk behind boys in a new trukk is twice as effective. That was the OP.

So no one would care if it was 12 plain boys in the truck?
What if I convert one of my old HTs to a Swarmlord?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

The wheels don't affect the footprint. They might affect the height slightly, but iirc it's not that significant a difference.


Yes, the Gorka truck is much smaller. There's zero reason to disallow it unless you're disallowing *all* old off-sized minis.

pretre wrote:Put it this way as way of comparison. I'm playing my SW. I have normal sized Razorbacks and Rhinos that I use as my front line. I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

Absolutely, yes.

Unless I drop the ball badly, you should never have any transports left after the 2nd turn against my Necrons.

However, I know that isn't the answer you were looking for, and I do see your point. I just think that it's still a negligible advantage unless you're playing against someone with a solitary anti-tank source, and in that case the advantage is pointless because you'll probably table that player anyway. I just don't think the advantage is so great that it's cause to deny some players from using their purchased and built models. And if the concern is that you don't want to play against someone that is exploiting the rule and becoming TFG, well I think that even without this issue, you still wouldn't want to play against TFG, because TFG never has only a single reason to be avoided.

It just seems like the issue is blown way out of proportion to me. (pun not intended, but damn that is a good one!)

rigeld2 wrote:Read the post I was replying to (hint - I quoted it). The old truck isn't going to fit in the back of the new one.

I know what you were responding to. I wrote it. I said 'almost literally fits in the new one' and 1/4 size. Both of which are pretty true.

So no one would care if it was 12 plain boys in the truck?
What if I convert one of my old HTs to a Swarmlord?

The point is trying to get advantage on me. If you are specifically using your old HTs to gain an ingame advantage, I will have a problem with that. The OP is talking about the guy doing exactly that.

Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

The wheels don't affect the footprint. They might affect the height slightly, but iirc it's not that significant a difference.

azazel the cat wrote:

pretre wrote:Put it this way as way of comparison. I'm playing my SW. I have normal sized Razorbacks and Rhinos that I use as my front line. I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

Absolutely, yes.

Unless I drop the ball badly, you should never have any transports left after the 2nd turn against my Necrons.

However, I know that isn't the answer you were looking for, and I do see your point. I just think that it's still a negligible advantage unless you're playing against someone with a solitary anti-tank source, and in that case the advantage is pointless because you'll probably table that player anyway. I just don't think the advantage is so great that it's cause to deny some players from using their purchased and built models. And if the concern is that you don't want to play against someone that is exploiting the rule and becoming TFG, well I think that even without this issue, you still wouldn't want to play against TFG, because TFG never has only a single reason to be avoided.

It just seems like the issue is blown way out of proportion to me. (pun not intended, but damn that is a good one!)

I agree with you.
Everyone should be able to use the models they have bought and payed for, and things like this always score big on forum discussions
Alsong as the old smaller model is not used for the specific purpous of being smaller then i think it would never be a problem for anyone.

I dont play in tournaments only with my friends and we have all sorts of wierd conversions that are different sizes so no problem there.
But i can see where some people are coming from, if the situation is in a competition and the smaller model is used for that reason only.

regards ogard

pretre wrote:The point is trying to get advantage on me. If you are specifically using your old HTs to gain an ingame advantage, I will have a problem with that. The OP is talking about the guy doing exactly that.

Put the old truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Put a new truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?


I can use my HTs to gain an ingame advantage by givin MCs a cover save/block LoS *much* easier than if I used the new models (wow... same as the truck). Should a TO ban old models because it's *possible* to do so?


It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

Life is seldom as black and white as we would like it to be.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

Life is seldom as black and white as we would like it to be.

In many cases you're right - in this one though...

Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

rigeld2 wrote:Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

Is your old HT 1/4 the size/mass of your new HT?

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

Is your old HT 1/4 the size/mass of your new HT?

It's about half.

And the gorka truck, while about 1/4 the height, is not about 1/4 the footprint.

Front size and height are the most important parts from a LOS standpoint.

So: Your HT is not 1/4 the height of the new model.

rigeld2 wrote:Put the old truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Put a new truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Shoot the Front trukk, which is an open-topped vehicle with an armour value of 10.

Problem solved.

True, but if you can somehow shoot the back trukk, you might get lucky causing it to ram the front trukk and blow both up.

insaniak wrote:Shoot the Front trukk, which is an open-topped vehicle with an armour value of 10.

Problem solved.

But then the back trukk is probably obscured by the crater and boyz that are standing in it. The thing is only 1 3/8" tall.

So you shoot the back trukk with a different unit, that isn't directly in line with both trukks.


The point was that this all seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Trukks aren't the hardest units on the board to remove. How many armies only field one unit that is capable of taking out armour 10 vehicles? Are players just blobbing up their entire army in one place, so that the front trukk is blocking LOS from the entire enemy army?

Is it really that big a deal?

People are calling it game-breaking to use a smaller model than the current one, when in actual practice the worst that is generally going to happen is that the model will receive a cover save in some situations where it otherwise might not have... in an edition where getting a cover save is incredibly easy anyway.

LUKE: It looks like the orks did it, all right. Look, there's choppas, trukk tracks, it's just, I never heard of them hitting anyhting this big before!
BEN: They didn't, but we are meant to THINK they did. These tracks are side by side. Orks always ride single file to hide their strength and numbers.
LUKE: These are the same Fabricators who sold us our Deathstrike Missile Launchers and Chimeras!
BEN: And these blastpoints, too accurate for orks. Only Astartes are this precise.
LUKE: But, why would Astartes wanna slaughter Fabricaotrs? (something dawns on him) If they traced the vehicles here, they'd know who they sold them to and that'd lead them back...home!
BEN:Wait, Luke! It's too dangerous!

(Sorry all this talk about Trukks in single file, I couldn't help myself)

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

The potential of abuse? Like playing the game by the rules while using legal models? That kind of abuse?

insaniak wrote:Is it really that big a deal?

People are calling it game-breaking to use a smaller model than the current one, when in actual practice the worst that is generally going to happen is that the model will receive a cover save in some situations where it otherwise might not have... in an edition where getting a cover save is incredibly easy anyway.

This. I just don't see why a small truck (making it easier to get cover saves) is *any* different from a small HT (which makes it easier to get cover saves). In fact, I'd say the small HT is *worse* because of how important to the Tyranid army it is (Synapse, Paroxysm, OA).

The truck is a transport. Transports (especially AV10 Open topped ones) are easy to kill - even with cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

The potential of abuse? Like playing the game by the rules while using legal models? That kind of abuse?

Note that I'm arguing that the model is fine - but the "potential for abuse" was brought up, so I was addressing that. And his definition of abuse was getting cover saves when a new model shouldn't - which applies to far more than the gorka truck.

The new model behind an older one shouldn't get a cover save because it is larger and won't be obscured. The older model behind a newer one CAN get a cover save because it is smaller and can be obscured. As a player, I am not altering anything about the models or the rules of the game to play this way. There is no abuse. There is only the combination of existing parameters in an effort to maximize efficiency. Does that make me TFG more than anybody fielding the current Gray Knights? You want a game with pure equality? How about Chess where both players go first. This is not that game.

Is it me or is there alot of grey knights hate in this thread about ork trukks??

It could be Space Wolves. It's about illustrating a point. The game designers aren't very good. The game is not very well balanced. To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Grey Knights are just the most recent example.

Ogard wrote:Alsong as the old smaller model is not used for the specific purpous of being smaller then i think it would never be a problem for anyone.

I agree, but unfortunately in this case it is

Just using the old minis is fine - sure, you get cover saves easier, but if GW had never made a new trukk kit nobody would be complaining as there wouldn't be a larger model to compare it to. A specific setup to maximize the advantage of a mix of old and new minis, though? That stinks.

Redbeard wrote:To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Okay, so let me get this straight:
- It is not okay to reject someone's model for perceived or unperceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go.
- The game will always be unbalanced so differences in models between players for the same codex entry are irrelevant.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling doesn't matter because of the previous three bullets.

These are your positions, correct?

pretre wrote:Front size and height are the most important parts from a LOS standpoint.

So: Your HT is not 1/4 the height of the new model.

1/2 the height is 1/4 the front area which is what MC's are judged on for cover.

Because our contention is that:
- It is okay to sometimes reject someone's model based on perceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go as long as you are not modelling for advantage.
- The game is unbalanced but that does not excuse taking advantage of your opponent.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling does matter and is not okay.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:1/2 the height is 1/4 the front area which is what MC's are judged on for cover.

Say what now?

A Monstrous Creature is 4 inches wide and 4 inches tall. An older version of that Monstrous Creature is 4 inches wide and 2 inches tall. You're telling me that 8 is 1/4 of 16?

pretre wrote:

Redbeard wrote:To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Okay, so let me get this straight:
- It is not okay to reject someone's model for perceived or unperceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go.
- The game will always be unbalanced so differences in models between players for the same codex entry are irrelevant.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling doesn't matter because of the previous three bullets.

These are your positions, correct?

Not entirely.

1) I think it is okay to reject an opponent's model in cases where abuse is blatant. Lying down wraithlords, or grots on 60mm bases just to take up space are good examples. These are also conversions. I don't think it is okay to reject an unconverted citadel miniature, even if is not the most recent. They paid for it, it's good - that much is my stance, in no uncertain terms. But there are times when it is reasonable to reject a conversion.

2) Much like 1. If it's a citadel miniature and it's built as intended at the time it was bought, it should be legal. Even if they changed their molds later. Or their bases. Or whatever else.

3) For the most part, yes, barring egregious intentional conversions, as mentioned above. I don't think there is a single citadel miniature, regardless of how old, that is so unfair that it creates a relevant unbalance (breaks the game). Yes, the old Avatar, or Hive Tyrant, are smallish models. Compare their statline and cost with Mephiston, who is as small as those older models.

4) This is the hard one. How do you go about proving intent, versus simple smart play. In the case described in the original post, what we know is that a player has a new trukk and an old trukk. We don't know that he can afford to buy another new trukk. We know that, with what he has, he's using them as intelligently as possible; he is most certainly gaining the most use of his trukks by putting the more valuable unit in the one that's easier to hide. Is this done with intent to take unfair advantage of an opponent, or is it done because putting the nobs in the big one doesn't work.

With that in mind, and again, considering the egregious examples from above, I don't think it is appropriate to claim that using a legal citadel miniature is taking unfair advantage of an opponent. It leads to a slippery slope. At what point do I get to say my opponent is fielding fifteen long fangs, which are pretty universally recognized as being underpriced, to get an advantage on me? My opponent has recognized that long fangs are 'good' and improve his chance of winning. They give him an advantage over me. I, similarly, recognize that my older trukks are good, and give me an advantage in return. Why do you keep insisting that one of these advantages is unfair, while the other is applaudable competitive play?

pretre wrote:Because our contention is that:
- It is okay to sometimes reject someone's model based on perceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go as long as you are not modelling for advantage.
- The game is unbalanced but that does not excuse taking advantage of your opponent.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling does matter and is not okay.

So if I use my shorties, I need to make sure that they're never behind my warriors (because then they'd be hidden) or really behind any other models (because of cover) or else I'm modeling for advantage?

pretre, I just had an interesting thought, since you already posted a couple pics of the size difference would you mind posting a few 'grots eye view' pics of what they would look in line, suggested angles would be 0° 20° and 340° that might give a better idea of how it looks, maybe do the same with 2 new trukks to compare

Shameless codex envy that GW gives an equal to advantage to all players of that codex does not justify a specific person gaining a personal advantage not available to all players of the codex.

GW has the right to change the game by increasing base size and model size and do so equally across an entire codex. An individual player does not, especially when he mix and matches different sized models as he deems fit.

You can't have one ork player running Ghaz around a table with blocking LOS with small barricades and hedges and assaulting with a 60mm base and then having 12 other ork players with larger trukks getting blown apart and Ghaz on his 40mm base. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone involved. Especially if the ork player knows he is gaming for an advantage by blocking LOS to a vehicle who shouldn't be able to get such an advantage and gaining 20mm distance when disembarking from transports.

It is game breaking. GW can break the game by modifying models but a player cannot. Well-run events will either ask models not be used or expect players to treat them for all purposes as the modern sized equivalent. It is very common for termies to be asked to be blue-taced to 40mm bases, for shooting pretend it is a taller model and leave the appropriate sized crater. If you are not explicitly running old trukks for an in-game advantage there should be no valid reason to refuse to accept playing the models as the new 'modern' size. I mean if it is really for nostalgia sake, you won't mind allowing your opponent to treat LOS as if it is 4" tall like the current trukk.

Redbeard wrote: I don't think it is appropriate to claim that using a legal citadel miniature is taking unfair advantage of an opponent. It leads to a slippery slope.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that using a model that is signficantly smaller than the current legal model or using older bases because you know they are better than the current ones is taking an unfair advantage.

RT Avatars, RT Dreads, Gorka Trukks, etc. Those are sooo far off from their current sizing that it is an unfair advantage.

I do not believe that the Hive Tyrant fits into that category, btw, rigeld2.

Redbeard, You feel strongly about it and I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't agree with you. There is just too big a size difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saiisil wrote:pretre, I just had an interesting thought, since you already posted a couple pics of the size difference would you mind posting a few 'grots eye view' pics of what they would look in line, suggested angles would be 0° 20° and 340° that might give a better idea of how it looks, maybe do the same with 2 new trukks to compare

I don't own a new trukk. I only own one of the old ones.

pretre wrote:Because our contention is that:
- It is okay to sometimes reject someone's model based on perceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go as long as you are not modelling for advantage.
- The game is unbalanced but that does not excuse taking advantage of your opponent.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling does matter and is not okay.

Then, in response, I offer:

1) I would like to reject all my opponent's long fangs, and, when I use my daemons, their grey knight models. Those things give them a huge advantage.

2) Following the instructions in the kit you paid for is considered modelling for advantage...

3) Every time you make a list, you attempt to gain an advantage over your opponent. The key word you're missing is unfair. And this is largely where we differ. I agree that it's unreasonable to take unfair advantage of an opponent. I do not believe that old ork trukks provide an unfair advantage. An advantage, sure, but a fair one. They're legal models, it should be fair game to use them. Again, as I've stated repeatedly, I do not believe that the game designers factor model, or base, size into their point costs when writing codexes, and I've backed this belief up with evidence comparing codex release dates with model release dates, as well as base size changes that occur without repricing of units.

4) Largely the same as 3, but again, you're omitting 'unfair', and it's the key word. I agree, trying to take unfair advantage via modelling is unreasonable and unsporting. But we just differ on where we think the line about 'fair' is drawn.

Redbeard wrote:1) I would like to reject all my opponent's long fangs, and, when I use my daemons, their grey knight models. Those things give them a huge advantage

This is just silly.

3) Every time you make a list, you attempt to gain an advantage over your opponent. The key word you're missing is unfair. And this is largely where we differ. I agree that it's unreasonable to take unfair advantage of an opponent. I do not believe that old ork trukks provide an unfair advantage. An advantage, sure, but a fair one. They're legal models, it should be fair game to use them.

Okay, so you're a new ork player and you want to be competitive. Can you scratchbuild Trukks to the exact specifications of the original gorka trukks and field them? Afterall, there's no way to buy new Gorka trukks.

nkelsch wrote:Shameless codex envy that GW gives an equal to advantage to all players of that codex does not justify a specific person gaining a personal advantage not available to all players of the codex.

I'd pay 7 points a model for my Boyz to be Psykers and have three types of grenades and Force Weapons.

nkelsch wrote:GW has the right to change the game by increasing base size and model size and do so equally across an entire codex. An individual player does not, especially when he mix and matches different sized models as he deems fit.

GW has never stated that my old and new Trukks, or any model made with different molds that I can think of, must be treated as the same size. In fact, they have gone so far to say that the models that came with various base sizes are totally allowed. And how am I changing the game by mixing and matching legal models of different size and using them according to the rules? You are right though, I do no have the right to change the game, unless my opponent agrees, or I am a TO.

nkelsch wrote:You can't have one ork player running Ghaz around a table with blocking LOS with small barricades and hedges and assaulting with a 60mm base and then having 12 other ork players with larger trukks getting blown apart and Ghaz on his 40mm base. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone involved. Especially if the ork player knows he is gaming for an advantage by blocking LOS to a vehicle who shouldn't be able to get such an advantage and gaining 20mm distance when disembarking from transports.

This is the second time you have mentioned a Ghazgkhull model on 60mm base. Was that ever a legal model, or are you giving an example of somebody arbitrarily gluing a huge base on a model that never came with one?

nkelsch wrote:GW can break the game by modifying models but a player cannot.

I haven't modified anything.

nkelsch wrote:Well-run events will either ask models not be used or expect players to treat them for all purposes as the modern sized equivalent.

You can have any definition of a well run event you wish. However, if they enforce model restrictions and criteria outside of the written GW rules, is it not the TO who is changing the game, and not the player using legal models by the rules?

nkelsch wrote:If you are not explicitly running old trukks for an in-game advantage there should be no valid reason to refuse to accept playing the models as the new 'modern' size.

True enough. But what if I am running the old Trukks for an in-game advantage? Do I still have to accept playing the models as the new 'modern' size?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:what if I am running the old Trukks for an in-game advantage? Do I still have to accept playing the models as the new 'modern' size?

Yes.

pretre wrote:Okay, so you're a new ork player and you want to be competitive. Can you scratchbuild Trukks to the exact specifications of the original gorka trukks and field them? Afterall, there's no way to buy new Gorka trukks.

We are talking about taking advantage of a model. You are talking about modeling for advantage. There is a difference. One involves using existing legal models without changing a thing. This is the player utilising the parameters of the game. The other involves deliberately altering or building a model. That is the player trying to alter the parameters of the game.

While all this is being said, scratch built and converted models are a huge part of the game. If you feel someone has modeled for advantage, you can require him to play against you with an adjusted rule-set, or not at all. That is your prerogative. If a TO rules against the use of said models in a tournament, or that they must use an adjusted rule set, that is his prerogative. If you say I cannot use a straight out of the box model because it is different than another mold of the same model made by the same company, or that I can only use it by playing with a different rule-set, that is ridiculous. I didn't change anything, the rules didn't change anything, nor have the rules changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Yes.

Why?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

pretre wrote:Okay, so you're a new ork player and you want to be competitive. Can you scratchbuild Trukks to the exact specifications of the original gorka trukks and field them? Afterall, there's no way to buy new Gorka trukks.

We are talking about taking advantage of a model. You are talking about modeling for advantage. There is a difference. One involves using existing legal models without changing a thing. This is the player utilising the parameters of the game. The other involves deliberately altering or building a model. That is the player trying to alter the parameters of the game.

Why do you get to use a smaller truck but the newer player doesn't?
Why should he suffer because he started the game later than you?
Would you be okay with him using a scratchbuilt trukk the size of the new trukk?
Why is that different than one of the old trukk?
Why is building a model the exact same size as your 'legal' old trukk modelling for advantage and building one the exact same size as a new trukk not?
Aren't they both 'legal' representations?

pretre wrote:Why is building a model the exact same size as your 'legal' old trukk modelling for advantage and building one the exact same size as a new trukk not?

One is going out of his way to have a small truck, and did not buy it from GW.
One purchased a small GW truck.

You don't see a difference there?

pretre wrote:Why do you get to use a smaller truck but the newer player doesn't?
Why should he suffer because he started the game later than you?
Would you be okay with him using a scratchbuilt trukk the size of the new trukk?
Why is that different than one of the old trukk?
Why is building a model the exact same size as your 'legal' old trukk modelling for advantage and building one the exact same size as a new trukk not?
Aren't they both 'legal' representations?

Because I have them. Why don't I get to use 4 Battlewagons in my army? Because I only have 2.
Is he suffering any more than him having only the newer Trukk models while I have Gray Knight Paladins?
I have no legal problem with him having any range of sizes from the old Trukk to the new one.
I never said that. I said that we were talking about 2 different issues, and defined them as such.
Yes.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, the Gorka truck is much smaller..

The bigger impact than cover saves (it's not exactly hard to get cover saves for vehicles using Orks), is the much greater ease of completely hiding the old rollerskate trukks out of LOS behind pretty much any hill or moderate-sized LOS blocking piece of terrain. It's just a great deal easier to hide in general. And the ability to hide transports, particularly Fast ones, is kind of a big deal in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Shameless codex envy...

Can we drop this kind of junk? Negatively characterizing one another or ascribing ignoble motives to our disagreements is never a good idea or a recipe for a friendly and productive discussion. It's come out of multiple people in this thread, so kindly don't think I'm just singling you out. No one should be doing it.

Mannahnin wrote:The bigger impact than cover saves (it's not exactly hard to get cover saves for vehicles using Orks), is the much greater ease of completely hiding the old rollerskate trukks out of LOS behind pretty much any hill or moderate-sized LOS blocking piece of terrain. It's just a great deal easier to hide in general. And the ability to hide transports, particularly Fast ones, is kind of a big deal in this game.

On the other hand, having a larger disembarking area, and a larger footprint in which to place a unit when the transport goes boom is also a fairly large deal... particularly where lightly armoured open-topped transports are concerned.


Are Guard, Tau or Marine players getting an unfair advantage by using kneeling models instead of standing ones? They're also easier to hide... and also legal GW models that are rules-wise exactly the same as their standing counterparts, but functionally different.


Again, just for clarity, I have no problem with tournaments wanting to even out these sorts of grey areas (although I absolutely detest the idea of treating a model as being a different size to what it is... I would much rather just have the offending model banned from the event in favour of the model it is 'supposed' to be) ... but we keep coming back to the idea that using differently sized models is a huge problem... in a game that is riddled with that sort of stuff even when you just look at currently available, unmodified models.

GW just don't make their models with consistency in this area in mind. How do we determine exaclty where to draw this line?

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The bigger impact than cover saves (it's not exactly hard to get cover saves for vehicles using Orks), is the much greater ease of completely hiding the old rollerskate trukks out of LOS behind pretty much any hill or moderate-sized LOS blocking piece of terrain. It's just a great deal easier to hide in general. And the ability to hide transports, particularly Fast ones, is kind of a big deal in this game.

On the other hand, having a larger disembarking area, and a larger footprint in which to place a unit when the transport goes boom is also a fairly large deal... particularly where lightly armoured open-topped transports are concerned.


Are Guard, Tau or Marine players getting an unfair advantage by using kneeling models instead of standing ones? They're also easier to hide... and also legal GW models that are rules-wise exactly the same as their standing counterparts, but functionally different.


Again, just for clarity, I have no problem with tournaments wanting to even out these sorts of grey areas (although I absolutely detest the idea of treating a model as being a different size to what it is... I would much rather just have the offending model banned from the event in favour of the model it is 'supposed' to be) ... but we keep coming back to the idea that using differently sized models is a huge problem... in a game that is riddled with that sort of stuff even when you just look at currently available, unmodified models.

GW just don't make their models with consistency in this area in mind. How do we determine exaclty where to draw this line?

This. How am I going to know when my HTs are "too short" or my Carnifexes from the same era are "too small"? I might decide to rebase them, but I'm not required to (they're still on the square bases they came with)...

Why am I having to check with my opponent/TO to use a 100% unconverted model that GW produced for this game?

rigeld2 wrote:

pretre wrote:Why is building a model the exact same size as your 'legal' old trukk modelling for advantage and building one the exact same size as a new trukk not?

One is going out of his way to have a small truck, and did not buy it from GW.
One purchased a small GW truck.

You don't see a difference there?

What if he makes a scratchbuilt trukk the same size as the gorka trukk using a new GW trukk kit?

The distinction is arbitrary. If it is okay for one player to use a trukk the size of the Gorka trukk, it is okay for another player to do the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The bigger impact than cover saves (it's not exactly hard to get cover saves for vehicles using Orks), is the much greater ease of completely hiding the old rollerskate trukks out of LOS behind pretty much any hill or moderate-sized LOS blocking piece of terrain. It's just a great deal easier to hide in general. And the ability to hide transports, particularly Fast ones, is kind of a big deal in this game.

On the other hand, having a larger disembarking area, and a larger footprint in which to place a unit when the transport goes boom is also a fairly large deal... particularly where lightly armoured open-topped transports are concerned.

With a fast opentopped vehicle in a trukk rush army, the only disembarking area you care about is the front. Since the front starts wherever you want and ends up wherever you want, that doesn't really matter. It's not like you're going to move 13" towards your opponent and disembark from the back.

rigeld2 wrote:Why am I having to check with my opponent/TO to use a 100% unconverted model that GW produced for this game?

Basically, because it was produced for an earlier incarnation of the game. Most people and organizers aren't going to have a problem, but when there's a big discrepancy between a previous edition model and the current one, it's probably polite to check.

Mannahnin wrote:

Can we drop this kind of junk? Negatively characterizing one another or ascribing ignoble motives to our disagreements is never a good idea or a recipe for a friendly and productive discussion. It's come out of multiple people in this thread, so kindly don't think I'm just singling you out. No one should be doing it.

Hey, they went there. They are the ones that said because GKs are overpowered and broken, it makes it ok for lower tier codexes to game an advantage out of vintage models.

I think that is a bunk attitude. Just because there is codex imbalance doesn't mean players should be exploiting their own codex to catch up to other more powerful codexes. I don't believe it is fair for one single ork player to use tactics and gain advantages in games denied to other ork players due to the tactics only working due to the exploitation of model size, including underheighted trukks, over-footprinted BWs and 60mm ghaz gaining 20mm everytime he disembarks.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Why am I having to check with my opponent/TO to use a 100% unconverted model that GW produced for this game?

Basically, because it was produced for an earlier incarnation of the game. Most people and organizers aren't going to have a problem, but when there's a big discrepancy between a previous edition model and the current one, it's probably polite to check.

So I should make sure and replace any model that changes size - just in case, right?

Screw that. I'm not buying 3 new Carnis and 4 new HTs.

Just to be clear, the term "Modelling for advantage" refers to customizing the miniature in some way, yes? So, different base size, conversions, and scratch-builds are all potential candidates for "Modelling for advantage".

But we don't have a term for using vintage models for advantage (which is completely legal by the rules). Maybe we could call it "Advintage!"

But seriously, this isn't against the rules. Some posters in this thread think "Advintage!" is unfair or poor sportsmanship, but I'm not seeing where using a legal, stock, Citadel miniature is against the rules.

Ironically enough though, if you were to take a stock vintage trukk, tack on a few bits to lightly convert it, and run it in a game where it was still smaller than the newer trukk, you would technically be "Modelling for advantage".

Of course not, but if you're attending an event someone's hosting, it's probably not a bad idea to check with them beforehand if they're ok with old models that have very different proportions to the current versions of the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it (in fact i encourage people to use old minis if they have them) provided nobody was, say, hiding an old one behind a new one for an advantage, which is pretty underhanded.

IcyCool wrote: "Advintage!"

Brilliant!

I will use this now.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it (in fact i encourage people to use old minis if they have them) provided nobody was, say, hiding an old one behind a new one for an advantage, which is pretty underhanded.

Because it's completely impossible to hide a new one behind a new one.

Oh wait - no, it's not. It's 100% the same thing. And it only gives you any benefit if your opponent has his entire army in one small area.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it (in fact i encourage people to use old minis if they have them) provided nobody was, say, hiding an old one behind a new one for an advantage, which is pretty underhanded.

Because it's completely impossible to hide a new one behind a new one.

Oh wait - no, it's not. It's 100% the same thing. And it only gives you any benefit if your opponent has his entire army in one small area.

It is not at all the same thing and you know it.

It is much much harder to block full LOS from multiple angles including elevated positions from one trukk to another. It is close to impossible as usually you can only block LOS for one particular angle.

It is not only extremely easy to block LOS for an old trukk with a new trukk but you can do so from multiple angles and elevations because it is so drastically different.

You can argue somehow you deserve an advantage but downplaying the advantage or saying it is non-existent is intellectually dishonest and insulting to your opponent to claim it has no impact.

I believe the rules question has been answered, correct? It's not illegal to use an old model. It certainly doesn't constitute modeling for advantage, since no modifications have been performed on the perfectly-legal model.

As can be seen here, however, there appears to be some dispute about the sportsmanship of the thing. Me, I don't give a flying feth, but it apparently is a problem for some people.

nkelsch wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it (in fact i encourage people to use old minis if they have them) provided nobody was, say, hiding an old one behind a new one for an advantage, which is pretty underhanded.

Because it's completely impossible to hide a new one behind a new one.

Oh wait - no, it's not. It's 100% the same thing. And it only gives you any benefit if your opponent has his entire army in one small area.

It is not at all the same thing and you know it.

It is much much harder to block full LOS from multiple angles including elevated positions from one trukk to another. It is close to impossible as usually you can only block LOS for one particular angle.

It is not only extremely easy to block LOS for an old trukk with a new trukk but you can do so from multiple angles and elevations because it is so drastically different.

You can argue somehow you deserve an advantage but downplaying the advantage or saying it is non-existent is intellectually dishonest and insulting to your opponent to claim it has no impact.

Yes, it is easier to hide the smaller model in multiple situations. Hiding one behind another, however - which is what I was replying to - is the same thing.

Yes there's an advantage. No I don't think it's an amazing-game-breaking-omg advantage. Yes, there are disadvantages. I don't know nor care if the disadvantage balances out.

And as for scratchbuilds - go ahead. Build an exact copy for all I care. You still have to ask your opponent if a counts-as is okay. The actual GW model doesn't. See the difference?

rigeld2 wrote:And as for scratchbuilds - go ahead. Build an exact copy for all I care. You still have to ask your opponent if a counts-as is okay. The actual GW model doesn't. See the difference?

So I remodel a GW New Trukk to the size of a gorka trukk. That's cool, right?

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And as for scratchbuilds - go ahead. Build an exact copy for all I care. You still have to ask your opponent if a counts-as is okay. The actual GW model doesn't. See the difference?

So I remodel a GW New Trukk to the size of a gorka trukk. That's cool, right?

Conversion, counts-as, needs approval.

nkelsch wrote:You can argue somehow you deserve an advantage but downplaying the advantage or saying it is non-existent is intellectually dishonest and insulting to your opponent to claim it has no impact.

But downplaying the disadvantages because you personally think this 'tactic' is abusive is fine?


That's where most of the disagreement is coming from here. You think that using the smaller trukk is abusive because it gives the player certain advantages that you think significantly outweight the disadvantages.
The opposing viewpoint is that the advantages and disadvantages either balance each other out, or are just relatively insignificant in the context of the game of 40K as a whole, given the generl lack of consistency with modelling and basing of 'official' GW models.

Ultimately, it's probably going to come down largely to the sort of games you're playing, and the people you're playing them with.

rigeld2 wrote: You still have to ask your opponent if a counts-as is okay. The actual GW model doesn't. See the difference?

Actually, everything requires opponent consent. If you do something that is seen as dishonest or underhanded, the game doesn't happen. You can claim moral highground all day with your fleet of gorkatrukks but it doesn't mean much if you can't play opponents because they see issues with hiding fast transports behind 1" hedges.

Maybe learn to play 5th edition orks instead of playing tactics that require 10+ year old models and would not work unless you had abusive models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:You can argue somehow you deserve an advantage but downplaying the advantage or saying it is non-existent is intellectually dishonest and insulting to your opponent to claim it has no impact.

But downplaying the disadvantages because you personally think this 'tactic' is abusive is fine?


That's where most of the disagreement is coming from here. You think that using the smaller trukk is abusive because it gives the player certain advantages that you think significantly outweight the disadvantages.
The opposing viewpoint is that the advantages and disadvantages either balance each other out, or are just relatively insignificant in the context of the game of 40K as a whole, given the generl lack of consistency with modelling and basing of 'official' GW models.

Ultimately, it's probably going to come down largely to the sort of games you're playing, and the people you're playing them with.

The issue is people don't maximize the disadvantages. If the disadvantages outweighed the advantages... we wouldn't be having this discussion because people would say "wah, gorka trukks suck and are totally a disaster..." No one would use them because they would be incentivize to not use them. The only reason people are using them is because they see the large advantage and want the advantage because people like to win at all costs and are shamelessly hiding behind 'wah I have gamers rights, official model' to justify abuse. When people do that, then it is easy... the game never takes place.

They do not at all balance out. Being able to have ZERO LOS to fast AV10 open-topped transport is very very useful. The smaller size also allows help with avoiding blasts due to scatter. The smaller footprint allows it to get through areas easier and causes less of a 'clog' you see with kult of speed lists.

The disadvantages are minimal if any at all. Smaller crater for cover? That is not a real disadvantage as your trukks will blow up less due to the ease of hiding them. Less disembark size? you only use one side so it is zero impact to room to disembark. less LOS for shooting? Does anyone even shoot with the BS on a trukk or is it there to protect against immobilized results? And how often will a player who knows about a disadvantage throw himself out there to have that disadvantage used against him. We don't expose our rear amror to the opponent even though rear armor is a disadvantage right? Players maximize advantages and avoid the disadvantages... so somehow thinking it will balance out is absurd.

It is a very real and large advantage, especially with mixing multiple sizes of trukks. If it wasn't then why wouldn't people just be fine with treating them as the modern GW trukk for all purposes so it has NO impact and the way the codex plays isn't fundamentally altered due to it?

Oh... and trukks never go 'boom'. You can never be placed in the crater as ramshackle never allows you to. All 3 results for ramshackle force disembarking before the trukk is removed so they will always be around the peremeter of the trukk. So claiming a 'tiny crater' as a disadvantage is a total dishonest lie when speaking of ork trukks.

haha, "Advintage" excellent word there.

would you prefer i scratch built a looted wagon the size of a titan to hide my brand new GW model? it's like 5 more points

nkelsch wrote:Maybe learn to play 5th edition orks instead of playing tactics that require 10+ year old models and would not work unless you had abusive models.

Maybe don't assume I play orks?

It is a very real and large advantage, especially with mixing multiple sizes of trukks. If it wasn't then why wouldn't people just be fine with treating them as the modern GW trukk for all purposes so it has NO impact and the way the codex plays isn't fundamentally altered due to it?

Because you're essentially forcing me to buy new models just to make things easy - because pretending something is bigger than it really is is annoying.

First of all, full disclosure. I gave the army I'm talking about to a friend a year or so ago. I'm using it as an example for the sake of argument.

So, let me get this straight...

I started playing 40k a long time ago. When I built my Kult of Speed army, all that GW sold were the old Gorkamorka Trukks. I put them together as per the instructions, painted them up, and played many a game with them. Nobody ever complained. Eventually, GW decided the old model was crap (which it was) and made new trukk models. I like my old trukks. They're full of fond memories, and I frankly do not care to shell out the money, time, and effort required to replace them. Because of that I'm gaming the system?

That seems a little harsh. I have a legal army of bought and paid for miniatures I assembled and painted up. They're unaltered GW trukks. I honestly fail to see how I'm "modeling for an advantage" by using stock, official GW kits.

By that rationale I'm gaming the system by using the old bikers, too. They're a lot smaller than the current ones.

But honestly, I am not trying to "cheat" in any way. I'm honestly just using my plastic toy soldiers to play a silly game. If my friend were to reappear with my old Orks tomorrow and line them up across from me, I'd have no problem. There's a guy around here who uses all Rogue Trader era Imperial Guard models because they're nifty and retro. He's not trying to cheat the system either. Just because someone started the game before somebody else is no reason to force them to go out and buy half (or all of)their army all over again.

...And by the way- if someone wants to go out and ebay an entire army of those god-awful trukks, I'm fine with it. I played against a Rogue Trader era Predator a while ago, and no fuss, no muss. it's just an older model, not some insidious plot to ruin "the hobby". If someone wants to mix and match their trukks, great. It makes the army look even more ramshackle. If they're hiding one trukk behind another, fine. I see Space Marine players do it all the time with their Rhinos. Heck, I do it all the time with my Plague Marines. My Daemon Princes (converted FW Plague Ogryn) also cower behind my Rhinos to get a cover save from the oodles and scads of Missile launchers. Nobody has ever complained about them. They're a touch smaller than the "official" model, but not for an advantage. I use the models because they look cooler than the official ones. In fact, I get compliments all the time on how my army looks.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that not everything is some grand conspiracy to break the game. Yes, the old trukks are smaller. To me that's fine. They were made that way.

nkelsch wrote:The disadvantages are minimal if any at all. Smaller crater for cover? That is not a real disadvantage as your trukks will blow up less due to the ease of hiding them. Less disembark size? you only use one side so it is zero impact to room to disembark.

Except if you're disembarking from one side, and that side is smaller... that's less space to disembark into. Which gives you less flexibility on model placement, which can affect what happens next.

less LOS for shooting? Does anyone even shoot with the BS on a trukk or is it there to protect against immobilized results?

I do when the troops have clambered out.

And how often will a player who knows about a disadvantage throw himself out there to have that disadvantage used against him. We don't expose our rear amror to the opponent even though rear armor is a disadvantage right?

We also don't try to claim that not exposing your rear army is a cheaty tactic.

Or that not deliberately exposing your rear armour means that the vehicle is over-powered due to its front armour being higher.

That weak rear armour is still there. Whether or not that causes you problems depends entirely on your tactics, and on how well your opponent manages to capitalise on that fault.

If it wasn't then why wouldn't people just be fine with treating them as the modern GW trukk for all purposes so it has NO impact and the way the codex plays isn't fundamentally altered due to it?

Speaking for myself, that would be because I absolutely detest treating a model as anything other than what is actually on the table. It leads to all sorts of issues, not least being that determiing LOS suddenly goes from 'Yes, I can see it' to 'Well, I could probably see it if it was this much taller...'

It's far easier to just play the game with the models you have, rather than the models someone else wishes you had.

Oh... and trukks never go 'boom'. You can never be placed in the crater as ramshackle never allows you to. All 3 results for ramshackle force disembarking before the trukk is removed so they will always be around the peremeter of the trukk. So claiming a 'tiny crater' as a disadvantage is a total dishonest lie when speaking of ork trukks.

It's a 'dishonest lie' if you remember the ramshackle rule and what it does when you point it out. There's a world of difference between a lie and forgetting a special rule. So how about we just turn the hyperbole down a notch, hmm?

And it still leaves you with a smaller zone to disembark into, about which I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to how large a disadvantage that is.

rigeld2 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Maybe learn to play 5th edition orks instead of playing tactics that require 10+ year old models and would not work unless you had abusive models.

Maybe don't assume I play orks?

It is a very real and large advantage, especially with mixing multiple sizes of trukks. If it wasn't then why wouldn't people just be fine with treating them as the modern GW trukk for all purposes so it has NO impact and the way the codex plays isn't fundamentally altered due to it?

Because you're essentially forcing me to buy new models just to make things easy - because pretending something is bigger than it really is is annoying.

it is pretty easy to do... and it is fair to your opponent.

Good news is most events (or at least the ones that matter) have made the decision for you. Pretend they are the correct size or don't attend. If you are playing with old models for nostalgia or poorness, no problem... just don't try to screen your trukks with grots. If you are playing for advantage, it has been made clear you are not welcome at the event. Everyone who matters wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

And it still leaves you with a smaller zone to disembark into, about which I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to how large a disadvantage that is.

Considering ork trukks are fast and usually control the angle, location and where to commit your models for a coordinated assault to maximize waaaagh (and considering the fact you hid total LOS so your trukks are not craters by now and you have more of them in position to strike directly due to the smaller size), you actually want a smaller disembark zone and less space taken up by the trukk. I have more than once had issues with coordinating my assault because there simply is not enough room for all my transports to get where I need them. Smaller transport gives less real estate taken up by trukks which leaves more room for boots on the ground. 12 25mm bases can easilly fit around the front of a gorka trukk a lot easier than the larger trukks. I would have killed for my trukk to be smaller as it would give me more room for disembarking as I can put multiple trukks near each other without them choking each other.

It is always an advantage, and a really really large one to the point that you can actually play the codex completely differently due to it. Things that do not work with new trukks can work with the old trukks.

Honestly, I don't respect all these fictional examples... I play orks and have been playing forks for 15+ years. I played a trukk heavy list all tourney season this year... it is a GAME BREAKING ADVANTAGE. Small trukks, oversized BWs and 60mm Ghaz are exploitative for the current ork codex. I support events which call these ork players out on their bull.

nkelsch wrote:Honestly, I don't respect all these fictional examples... I play orks and have been playing forks for 15+ years. I played a trukk heavy list all tourney season this year... it is a GAME BREAKING ADVANTAGE.

The thing is, the original scenario that started this thread wasn't talking about a trukk heavy list. It was talking about two trukks.

I have one trukk in my Ork army. As I mentioned earlier, I use the actual trukk model as a buggy. My trukk is a converted Chimera... but if I were to use the trukk as a trukk, I'm honestly just not seeing it as that big a deal in an army that also has an oversize Battlewagon (that has so far endured one tournament with nothing but compliments) non-standard Kans, bikes converted from Ork bikes, Marine bikes, and spare parts, Nobs made from Warboss models, and Ork Boyz ranging from Gorkamorka Yoofs and 2nd edition starter set plastics through to current edition models.

YMMV, obviously. Which comes back to that 'makes a difference where you're playing' thing.

Small trukks, oversized BWs and 60mm Ghaz are exploitative for the current ork codex. I support events which call these ork players out on their bull.

I'm puzzled as to why you keep bringing the 60mm Ghaz up, since it's not legal in the first place. I notice though that you didn't answer the question posed earlier, which was whether it would still be abusive if GW decide to upgrade him to a 60mm base as they have done for Kans and Dredds?

I completely agree with Insaniak. It matters where you are playing. That really sums it up. Talk to your TO or your opponent and you'll be fine. Just be aware that people may have different opinions than you about perfectly legal things and that may affect your ability to play them. Same if you're playing Orks or SW, it all comes down to opponent consent.

nkelsch wrote:It is also perfectly legal to not play him because he is modeling for advantage.

Gorkamorka trukks are abusive and have no place as trukks in 5th edition and I am a ork player who has 50k+ of orks and almost every ork vehicle ever made.

The grace period is over, it is time to update your trukks and battlewagons fellas. No reason to have skateboards and 12"x24" tanks on the table.

I use my old trucks and converted them to buggies.

nkelsch wrote:Good news is most events (or at least the ones that matter) have made the decision for you. Pretend they are the correct size or don't attend. If you are playing with old models for nostalgia or poorness, no problem... just don't try to screen your trukks with grots. If you are playing for advantage, it has been made clear you are not welcome at the event. Everyone who matters wins.

People gather together to collectively re-write the rules of the game to their own liking all the time. That is great. What is not great is you claiming that the house rules of 'the events that matter' supersede the actual real rules of Warhammer 40K. I'll screen any legal model I want with any other legal model I want. You can't stop me. You just won't include me in the 'everyone who matters' club, whose by-laws are the whim of the in-crowd. Thanks, but I think I'll just stick to the written rules and those who play by them.

Hiding a smaller model behind a big one is definitely orky. Besides, how hard is it to blow up a trukk FFS? Now TWO trukks in front of a small trukk that's over powered indeed.

If old models are legit, then the the obscurement rule would apply. If the trukk is 50% visible it gets a 4+ cover. If it's not visible and you think that it is cheating/unfair, then don't play the guy. If you can't blow up a trukk, then use str 7 shooting.

Really? No comments on my remark of Orks riding in single file? Not even a "will someone slap that guy?" Gah! I don't know why I waste my time with pointless posts...
At least it was kinda relevent... mumble. mumble, young whipersnappers...mumble...

Happyjew wrote:Really? No comments on my remark of Orks riding in single file? Not even a "will someone slap that guy?" Gah! I don't know why I waste my time with pointless posts...
At least it was kinda relevent... mumble. mumble, young whipersnappers...mumble...

I giggled. Just didn't feel like commenting at the time. I don't want you to feel your effort was wasted though.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:People gather together to collectively re-write the rules of the game to their own liking all the time. That is great. What is not great is you claiming that the house rules of 'the events that matter' supersede the actual real rules of Warhammer 40K. I'll screen any legal model I want with any other legal model I want. You can't stop me. You just won't include me in the 'everyone who matters' club, whose by-laws are the whim of the in-crowd. Thanks, but I think I'll just stick to the written rules and those who play by them.

I have to agree with you completely here, if by following rules that are set by the company is going to break 'event rules' then I will gladly break those. They want to complain well I have some strong opinions on that.

Happyjew wrote:Really? No comments on my remark of Orks riding in single file? Not even a "will someone slap that guy?" Gah! I don't know why I waste my time with pointless posts...
At least it was kinda relevent... mumble. mumble, young whipersnappers...mumble...

Sorry Happy, while I did laugh didn't see a point in making a comment.

insaniak wrote:

Small trukks, oversized BWs and 60mm Ghaz are exploitative for the current ork codex. I support events which call these ork players out on their bull.

I'm puzzled as to why you keep bringing the 60mm Ghaz up, since it's not legal in the first place. I notice though that you didn't answer the question posed earlier, which was whether it would still be abusive if GW decide to upgrade him to a 60mm base as they have done for Kans and Dredds?

Because it is one of the 3 ork model size issues which is constantly abused by cheaty ork players and is frequently removed from well-run events.

If GW decided to upgrade him to 60mm then all ork players across the meta could then have 60mm GHAZ and while it would be a bump, it then becomes fair as every ork player everywhere gets the advantage, not just the ones who build oversized Mega Armor Bosses. If GW decides to give all GHAZ players an extra inch to his movement, then that is how it is, opposed to a single player who decides to give himself an extra inch to his movement while everyone else does not recieve that distance.

New trukk size is a large nerf, almost to the point people hardly use them or see them as competative. The only way to keep the integrity of events is to make sure all ork players use the same size vehicles because small trukks drastically impact the game more than any other size difference for legacy models out there. The advantages are massive and numerous, the disadvantages are realistically non-existent and the way the model plays is drastically different to the point where it is almost a different unit type. In an army which is about cover for vehicles via wargear, having models who don't need cover because they can't be seen changes the entire way the army plays and brings tactics which ONLY WORK for gorkatrukks. That is a problem to me and where the game breaks.

My ghaz is on a 25mm base...so eat that! Good old second edition ghaz.

A lot of the arguments come down to intent really. Did the player purposely purchase and use the more advantageous model knowing full well the advantage it would give? If I were to go out today and purposely look for and purchase a 2nd edition Tyrant with the intent of gaming the LOS rules, that would be shady, but using something I've had for years upon years isn't. Since it's impossible to know how long someone has had something, or their intent in using it, many want to default to a common size for all models of that type, usually the newest.

On a similar topic, what about units that don't have models and intentionally gaming the LOS rules? Odds are that any GW produced Harpy model for example, will be huge and very likely on a flying stand like a Storm Raven. I've seen conversions done where people have just glued gargoyle wings on a warrior and given it a bigger gun, and tried to claim cover saves off of termigants. No model, so you can't argue it's not legit, but clearly a case of modelling for advantage and one you can't really shoot down easily.

Because it is one of the 3 ork model size issues which is constantly abused by cheaty ork players and is frequently removed from well-run events.

Bit of an uniformed and incorrect statement there. So in your world any Ork player that uses a legal GW supplied model is a cheater and abuser? I also guess that in your mind any event that allows legal models is not well run. You must have loads of fun at RTTs.

New trukk size is a large nerf, almost to the point people hardly use them or see them as competative. The only way to keep the integrity of events is to make sure all ork players use the same size vehicles because small trukks drastically impact the game more than any other size difference for legacy models out there. The advantages are massive and numerous, the disadvantages are realistically non-existent and the way the model plays is drastically different to the point where it is almost a different unit type. In an army which is about cover for vehicles via wargear, having models who don't need cover because they can't be seen changes the entire way the army plays and brings tactics which ONLY WORK for gorkatrukks. That is a problem to me and where the game breaks.

Again incorrect and uninformed. To me the new trukks are better. I use them exclusively and see them as highly competive. Not to mention better looking. If you feel all Ork players should be required to use the current Trukk do you also feel that anyone with old Terminators should be required to rebase them? How about folks wanting to use models that GW either doesn't or has not released yet? Would you complain about someone using a model that no one knows what the proper base size is/should be? What is the size of a Tyranid Pod? If I use one the size of an IMperial DP is that OK? How about if it is twice as large/half the size? I give my Chaos Daemon Prince wings. There is no model supplied with Wings. Is converting one with wings going to be met with scorn by you?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I give my Chaos Daemon Prince wings. There is no model supplied with Wings.

Yes there is. There always has been, the old metal daemon prince sculpts had wings, the special character princes had wings, and the plastic kit has wings as one of its assembly options. There are two princes without wings (the metal one that was replaced by the plastic kit and the nurgle one) but those are actually the minority.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I give my Chaos Daemon Prince wings. There is no model supplied with Wings.

Yes there is. There always has been, the old metal daemon prince sculpts had wings, the special character princes had wings, and the plastic kit has wings as one of its assembly options. There are two princes without wings (the metal one that was replaced by the plastic kit and the nurgle one) but those are actually the minority.

So swap "Chaos Demon Prince" with "Tyranid Hive Tyrant".

nkelsch wrote:
If GW decided to upgrade him to 60mm then all ork players across the meta could then have 60mm GHAZ and while it would be a bump, it then becomes fair as every ork player everywhere gets the advantage, not just the ones who build oversized Mega Armor Bosses. If GW decides to give all GHAZ players an extra inch to his movement, then that is how it is, opposed to a single player who decides to give himself an extra inch to his movement while everyone else does not recieve that distance.

Did you just say that a change in size is ok if everybody does it? Of course, the 60mm Ghaz would have to be legal first....

But, if everyone had Gorka trukks, which are completely legal GW trukk models, does that make it ok? That way, whenever an opponent hears "ork trukk" they can identify the small size with the points cost. Sure, it would change the meta. But it would be legal.

nkelsch wrote:... by cheaty ork players...

Again, with the biased language and accusations of cheating.

... The only way to keep the integrity of events...

Integrity of events? Seriously? And what integrity are you attempting to preserve? Your fictional idea of what the competitive metagame is? God forbid someone run an ork trukk at a tournament, shattering your idea of what's viable and what isn't.

I'd venture to say that any ork player who wants can find the old trukks with minimal effort on their part. There are at least six on eBay right now, all for under $10. If all ork players simply use the old ones, your argument about the differences becomes invalid. The community has simply refused to acknowledge the new model, or the disadvantages that it comes with.

You have yet to present any argument as to why you believe the size of the models is designed into their cost. I've put forth several arguments, backed with supporting data, that shows that the size of a model is not related to their points cost. Based on this, I still fail to see how using an older model is getting an advantage that isn't paid for.

nkelsch wrote:Because it is one of the 3 ork model size issues which is constantly abused by cheaty ork players and is frequently removed from well-run events.

You have failed to prove that using the two different legal GW Trukk models in accordance with the rules is cheating. As for your 'well run events', just saying 'this is how we do it around here' is not tantamount to official GW rulings. Some posts have a claim that the intent of their use is cheating or being TFG. As for intent, I intend to win. The extent to which I pursue that goal is totally dependent on my mood, my opponent, and the circumstances under which we are playing. Does shielding my smaller legal model with a larger legal model in accordance with the rules make me TFG? Yes. Does fielding 20 point Psyker Marines with three types of grenades and Force Weapons make me TFG? Yes. Are they both legal? Yes. Why do you feel the one condemned by the 'well-run' events is cheating, and the other is not?

Nkelsch, I just looked through your gallery. Is that your army? According to YOUR name-calling and arguments here so far, I'm going to call you cheaty. Your biker boss is on a custom bike base, which is HUGE. Most of your stuff is- God forbid -converted from other models, and does not exactly match the current official GW models for LOS purposes.

Seriously dude? I'm not saying you're wrong- I play orks to convert as well. I love being able to use any model I want and turning it into something orky. But with the vehement resolve you have had in this thread, I can't help but point out your disparities in theory and practice.

Beautiful army though btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Logically that previous post of mine is ad hominem and off topic.

However, I think it shows us that playing orks is not about having everything the same "correct GW sanctioned tourney legal blah" shape and size. And you know that.

You do you are talking about ork trukks? GW has not disallowed the use of older ork model but infact has sanctioned use of older trukk as the codex and gw website both state that each trukk looks different.

pretre wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

pretre wrote:Okay, so you're a new ork player and you want to be competitive. Can you scratchbuild Trukks to the exact specifications of the original gorka trukks and field them? Afterall, there's no way to buy new Gorka trukks.

We are talking about taking advantage of a model. You are talking about modeling for advantage. There is a difference. One involves using existing legal models without changing a thing. This is the player utilising the parameters of the game. The other involves deliberately altering or building a model. That is the player trying to alter the parameters of the game.

Why do you get to use a smaller truck but the newer player doesn't?
Why should he suffer because he started the game later than you?
Would you be okay with him using a scratchbuilt trukk the size of the new trukk?
Why is that different than one of the old trukk?
Why is building a model the exact same size as your 'legal' old trukk modelling for advantage and building one the exact same size as a new trukk not?
Aren't they both 'legal' representations?

Pretre I think your heart is in the right place here, you are trying to make the game fair, but unfortunately in your quest for fairness you are the one actually breaking the rules. Think of it like this. I have a bunch of Gold and Silver US dollars that were made in the year 1901 and 1892. As legal tender currency they are both legal dollars. If I go to the gas station with my 24K gold US eagle $1.00 coin it will buy me exactly $1.00 worth of gas. But why would I do that, the gold in the coin and the collectibility of the coin make it worht thousands of dollars. However the coin is legal currency and it is legally worth $1.00.

However since I own it, I can sell it for thousands of US paper dollars, I can use it as legal tender for $1.00 the decision is mine and both are legal.

Now, do they still make $1.00 coins out of 24K gold? No

Are you allowed to buy gold and make a 1892 US gold Eagle dollar? No that would be highly illegal.

Can you go to a coin shop and buy a Gold eagle dollar? Yes.

Hereya go: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Space-Orks-Gorkamorka-Trukk-wABJ-/260912272756?pt=UK_Toys_Wargames_RL&hash=item3cbf955574

make sense now?

basically my great granpa was a coin collector and he gave me these coins. Is that unfair to you? Should I just throw my coins away and never use them because you don't like the fact that I have them and you don't? Am I cheating because my great granpa collected gold coins and gave them to me and I decide that I want to legally use them?

Grots R OP wrote:make sense now?

Wow. Equating converting with counterfeiting currency. Unique. And no. That didn't help.

I largely gave up on this thread a while back though.

Sentinel wrote:Nkelsch, I just looked through your gallery. Is that your army? According to YOUR name-calling and arguments here so far, I'm going to call you cheaty. Your biker boss is on a custom bike base, which is HUGE. Most of your stuff is- God forbid -converted from other models, and does not exactly match the current official GW models for LOS purposes.

Seriously dude? I'm not saying you're wrong- I play orks to convert as well. I love being able to use any model I want and turning it into something orky. But with the vehement resolve you have had in this thread, I can't help but point out your disparities in theory and practice.

Beautiful army though btw.

I totally have ork models which have had to be 'retired' due to changes. I have a biker boss who was made way before the official FW model was released which set a 'larger than bike, smaller than my bike' base. I haven't run bikerboss in a tourney in 3 years either because of it. I am very aware of non-standard sized models and how it impacts the ork player.

I have Gorka trukks and 3rd edition massive BWs. They get retired. Can I run around and scream about my rights? Can I leverage 'rule of cool' to dazzle people? I can do a lot of things, but I don't I try to respect opponents in what is primarily a social game by not bringing models which impact the game, or if it *DOES* impact the game, refrain from using them or treating them in such a way it does as minimal impact as possible. I have had events tell me if a model was an issue and when it was I simply did not use it. Infact I usually strive to get pre-approval of any non-standard models and seek out how a tourney will rule on model sizes. If I do use a non-standard size, I point it out to my opponent and treat it as 'the official' size for all purposes and if there is an issue apply the least advantageous result. That is respecting your opponent and using models because they are cool not because you intend to get an advantage out of it.

The issue is all of the 'excuses' are just that. We all can tell when someone is attempting to get away with something and when they are not. People on Dakka like to make 'Hypothetical' to try to paint people into corners. We all know that friendly games and events is very much a 'gut check'. If someone happened to have gorka trukks and was playing them as if they knew no better, it would probably be ok. If I had a player scream at me about his player rights, mixed his trukk with other trukks and then put his highest priority target int he smaller trukk to deny full LOS and then attempted to screen that trukk using tactics which would be impossible with other trukks, the game ends. Pure and simple. Tourneys are aware, it comes up more than you think and I support the effort for TOs to lock down these models to prevent arguments and do what is best for the majority of participants and fair to everyone involved.

The reality is it does impact gameplay, and if the player purposefully takes advantage of the advantages, it can impact it drastically so to a point where the game is being played based upon things that break the social contract (like infiltrating your kroot so your opponent can't come ont he board and instantly loses...)

nkelsch wrote:
If I had a player scream at me about his player rights, mixed his trukk with other trukks and then put his highest priority target int he smaller trukk to deny full LOS and then attempted to screen that trukk using tactics which would be impossible with other trukks, the game ends. Pure and simple.

So if a player had old trukks, and bought a couple of new ones, without wanting to spend the money to buy all new ones, you're saying that he should be forced to play stupidly with what resources he has?

after reading this massive thread i am still going to use my trukks as trukks.

if you gave a new trukk and and old trukk to a kid and some nobs and some boyz and the kid new the fundamentals of how to play and that nobz are better then boyz i think he would try screening his nobz with his boyz.


now lets reverse this lets say he tried screening his boyz with the nobz. you would inwardly (or outwardly if you TFG) laugh at his tactic error, and then would you suggest to him that his nobz are better suggest screening them then turn around and say oh yeah those models you got from your family that are legal GW models you can't use now due to it being to small and give you an advantage even though i just told you to do it...

i know my trukks are smaller then my new trukks and your damn right i am going to trying hiding my nobs or ghazzkull, and cruising with a big mek is the way to go. so i will have my cake and i will eat it. hell if i want ghazz with snikk rot coming on your side of the board i can do that to. its not an advantage when its all the models i have. but i wont be stupid and place high value targets in front of chump blocks. and if this is what is game breaking for you well l2p

Nkelsch:

Ok, fine, you've retired them. Good enough.

But I think you're applying the tournament mentality to the entire game and "what makes something right".

40k is not a tournament game. The rulings made by TOs about these trukks are simply there to avoid confusion and time-wasting arguments. But that doesn't mean it is wrong or game-breaking to play with those units....

Sentinel, it mostly matters in tournaments, though. In friendly games the outcome is more casual, and you can easily walk away from the table if your opponent is doing something you don't like.

While I don’t think nkelsh’s tone does the argument any favors, and I disagree with some of his inferences and implications, in essence I have to agree with many of his points.

A few folks have put forward the argument that the advantages are counterbalanced by disadvantages, but here I have to 100% agree with nkelsch. There are very few, limited circumstances under which a smaller transport is a drawback. The size differential of the old trukk vs the new is so big that it really does greatly change how the unit can be used. This isn’t something that’s necessarily obvious if you haven’t played a lot of competitive games, and on a wide variety of tables (no insult meant, but I know at least one of the active folks in this thread has very limited tournament experience), but it becomes apparent when you have and when you take into account the actual terrain that’s out there. While I think most tables in the world could use and should have more big LOS-blocking terrain, including more stuff capable of completely hiding grav tanks, battlewagons, landraiders and new Trukks, in reality even most good tables have only a few pieces capable of doing that. Whereas they very often have several medium-sized hills, low ruins, or walls 1”-2” in height which are mostly just capable of hiding infantry, while leaving at least part of most vehicles visible. The Gorka trukks are so small that on most tables they are capable of hiding in many more places than a current Trukk would be able to, and their shorter length helps make it so that you’re often capable of fitting a couple of trukks into such a hiding space.

Now I know that Redbeard has played a lot of competitive events and is aware of this, but his argument is a different one. I don’t believe he’s disagreeing that the model is far more advantageous from a tactical standpoint. His argument is that it’s a legal model from GW and he has the right to use it in perpetuity. Further, he feels that the game itself is sufficiently unbalanced as to render even the level of the Trukk difference basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And I’m not going to say that there’s no validity to those opinions. This is an area where it’s going to come down to some subjective judgments and personal experiences. In most cases I agree- most changed models are not SO changed that the difference really matters in games. Examples where it does are relatively infrequent.

But, IMO, this (like the old 28mm tall RT Avatar) constitutes one. It’s one of those situations where as a person playing against Orks, as soon as you see the Gorka trucks (even one or two of them) across the table for you, you become acutely aware that they will be harder to see and to kill during the game, and you will need to play differently than you would if your opponent had chosen to use the current model. Now, issues like this can sometimes come up with nonstandard and converted models too. But most of the time with those models, you can tell that they were built for Reasons of Cool, and you are in part “compensated” for the extra effort or annoyance of dealing with a nonstandard model by the enjoyment of looking at it, especially if your opponent makes clear by his behavior during the game that he’s not trying to maximize the tactical impact of his nonstandard model. He’s using it because it’s cool, and may even deliberately avoid taking advantage of its unusual shape or size. With Gorka trucks (and RT Avatars) it’s the opposite. Your opponent has chosen to field a tactically-advantageous but less-appealing model. It’s two strikes against the social contact of the game. Instead of being provided a superior visual spectacle to “make up for” the advantageous model, the opponent loses out in both areas.

I’m not saying that I will or ever have refused to play against Gorka trukks, but I will say that I have had a range of experiences with and against them, and they tend to hinge on the behavior of the guy across the table; a point that Pretre made earlier, IIRC. If the player is deliberately fielding it purely to take advantage of its size, it becomes annoying and reduces the fun of the game. If they are just using it for reasons of not having more current models (whether through lack of cash or whatever), and are not maximizing the use of the model’s advantages, it does not impact the enjoyment of the game in a negative way.

While I will never say that owners of the older model have no right to use it, I do think it is telling that some of the big events have started to make rulings about nonstandard model sizes, trying to reduce some of the gamesmanship which can be engaged in by using unusually-sized and shaped models.

Often the key impetus for this is indeed “cheaty” players, deliberately making nonstandard models to garner advantages the stock ones don’t have. There’s a group of guys who appeared at one of the big events with converted “grav” Chimeras which were similar to enclosed landspeeders in shape, with narrower bodies and little wings, on low flying stands. If you counted their little wings and tails, they were technically the same width and length as a Chimera. On their stands they were the same height. But due to having smaller hulls they were able to get cover easier. And due to the shape of their bodies/wings they could often fire their hull heavy bolters past one another, where LOS would have been blocked with normal Chimera bodies. And if they became Immobilized or Wrecked, the player could remove them from the stand “for looks”, thus also removing the LOS blockage from the ones behind. Now this is obviously far from the same thing as the Trukk situation, but it’s not very far from what’s sometimes been done with Battlewagons. Most Battlewagons are made for reasons of cool (and because for many years there was no official model apart from limited-availability resin ones from Armorcast or Forgeworld). But when your converted battlewagon has a 5” frontage rather than a 3” frontage, that’s a lot wider front armor facing and a significant difference in how your opponent has to fight it/how hard it is to get side shots. These kinds of shenanigans have been some of the factors weighing into the decisions by big event organizers to put some restrictions on nonstandard models, or to require that they be played “as if” they were the standard model if a situation arises in the game where their shape is an advantage.

Thankfully that kind of stuff is relatively rare and doesn’t come up often. IME very few players come anywhere near the shadiness of the guys with the converted Chimeras. I’m not saying it’s rife. It’s just the most extreme example of a continuum of modeling choices which can have an impact on the game and on your opponent’s enjoyment. A continuum on which, I will admit, my own old Rhinos in my Fallen army sit. I personally think there’s a real and substantial difference in how and to what degree said old rhinos and old trucks impact the game and the fun of opponents, but that’s a subjective judgment. I actively listen to opponents’ comments and try to gauge if it’s an issue or garnering me a real advantage. I do plan to eventually update them, for the sake of doing fancier paintjobs at least. I did eventually re-base all the square-based lesser daemon models in my army on round ones, once I became aware that I was gaining or could inadvertently gain a small but measurable advantage from the square bases.

Obviously Redbeard and I hold different opinions about the general balance of the game, and how much this stuff matters. And that’s okay and understandable. I think what’s most important is that we are aware of these issues and respect people’s right to hold a different opinion on it, and be ready to give and take when it comes to these questions at the table. This thread arose because the original poster felt that his opponent was taking advantage of the old model, and felt it unfair. Again, this is a question relating to the behavior of one player and the perceptions of the other, not just the legality of a model. If someone reading this thread is the owner of Gorka trucks and wants to use them, this thread is hopefully food for thought in terms of why an opponent might have an issue and how you can minimize or forestall any complaints. If someone reading this thread isn’t an Ork player but encounters the old models at some point, hopefully he won’t leap to the assumption that the other guy is trying to screw him by using them, and he can see from the posts in this thread the multiple reasons why and how the opponent may consider them perfectly legit and reasonable to field.

GW should have adjusted the stats for the older models. That solves anything. I started 40K 20 years ago. 90% of my Orks are old models. No desire to upgrade them just to make it tournament legal.

 insaniak wrote:
The Gorkamorka trukk was also the regular 40K Ork trukk for quite a few years.

The rules don't require you to update your models to the newest version. So yes, it's perfectly legal to use the smaller trukk, and screen it with the newer one.

It's an official GW model, so there's no question as to whether it's legal. Safe to assume the Nobz Mob was a smaller unit than the Boyz unit, Jeeps are smaller than Trucks in the real world, and ork vehicles aren't uniform if you ask any mekaniak.

If you find it disadvantageous to play with GorkaMorka models, make adjustments by adding the intended capacity roolz, i.e. The orks can be transported in it only if the player can fit the models in the vehicle, and damage is doled out to Ork models that fall off the trukk when the player moves it.

 Scraps4Bitz wrote:
. The orks can be transported in it only if the player can fit the models in the vehicle, and damage is doled out to Ork models that fall off the trukk when the player moves it.

That would prevent all Ork vehicles from working at full capacity.


Meanwhile, this thread was from 2011. Let's put it back to bed...