16286
Post by: Necroshea
I've managed to get my hands on some OOP ork trukks, as well as two of the current ork trukks. I'd like to use them both, as the old Trukks are still official minis, but the size difference is pretty big.
What is your attitude towards fielding something old and a bit difference in size?
What is your attitude towards an opponent doing it?
I feel cheesy for having a vehicle half the size of the current one, but as I said it's still an official model so it's leaving me a bit confused. Considering it's completely WYSISYG, I don't think there should be any problems, but I'm unsure.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
It's an official GW model, I'd be fine with it.
44326
Post by: DeffDred
I don't know if it's true but I heard that you must have the most recent model to use it in an offical GW setting.
Otherwise I don't really see a problem. Personally I wouldn't mind but they seem like they should be used as buggies because they're so small.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
I suspect you will have more people going "Cool old school trukks!" then grumbling about being MFAd
Keep our history alive and rolling! If you have old stuff, field it.
Full discloser: I have a few squads of old beakies in a pair of tiny rhinos, and old, lead terminators on small bases, so am a little biased...
55956
Post by: Lt.Soundwave
Personally im in the "cool old school stuff crowd". One of the reasons im such a fan of gitsplittas awesome PM modeling blog.
16286
Post by: Necroshea
I mean, I play to have fun, not play to win. If someone wants to contest a cover save I wouldn't have any problem agreeing to their terms anyways unless it's pretty outlandish
58131
Post by: Eetion
I'd be fine, arnt they the same scale as the scorchas and buggys anyway?
Could always do a gorka morka mob if it bothers you.
33133
Post by: Maenus_Rajhana
Not as though Ork Trukks come out of an STC, there's no reason they shouldn't be different sizes. It's an official model, have at!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Maenus_Rajhana wrote:Not as though Ork Trukks come out of an STC, there's no reason they shouldn't be different sizes. It's an official model, have at!
Thats my logic.
No 2 ork vehicles should EVER look alike.
16286
Post by: Necroshea
Eetion wrote:Could always do a gorka morka mob if it bothers you.
Is that what the oldschool trukk comes from? The guys i got the first ones from said so, but now I see others say they're simply OOP trukks.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I think the Gorka morka set just had an ork 40k trukk that was the current model at the time. The same ork trukk GW sold for 40k
61163
Post by: Brother maximus
If it's GW I'd be fine
50724
Post by: orkybenji
It's no big deal just use them. You can use them for buggies too if you want
99
Post by: insaniak
Grey Templar wrote:I think the Gorka morka set just had an ork 40k trukk that was the current model at the time. The same ork trukk GW sold for 40k
When Gorkamorka was released, the Trukk didn't exist as a 40K unit. It was created for Gorkamorka, and then added into the 40K list in the 3rd edition codex. Automatically Appended Next Post: On topic - I don't have a problem with people fielding the old trukk, but I personally use mine as a buggy.
19750
Post by: Nym
Don't feel bad. I have a friend who only owns these kind of Trukks, because he started playing Orks before the current codex.
You can't be blamed for owning a model that was still sold 5 years ago...
59473
Post by: hobojebus
I recently collected all my old ork stuff and painted it, my force has three of those trukks, why? because i already own them and i dont want to spend more money when i have 3 official GW models.
None of my friends has an issue with it.
52200
Post by: Ravanar
Is it me or is the old model a bit too... clean cut to be an Ork production though? Surely that has to be a looted imperial cargo hauler with ork bitz added?
Jokes aside I don't think I'd really hear anyone complain about it, it still dies to bolter fire, they don't seem to turn up that often (at least in my meta) and they're still GW, who cares?
Also, I don't think I've ever heard anythign about OOP GW not being allowed at torunaments or other events. The only thing I've heard is that a model must be mounted on at least the size of base it was provided with or intended for which means if you really wanted you could put an ork Boy on a 4' wide base...
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Necroshea wrote:What is your attitude towards fielding something old and a bit difference in size?
What is your attitude towards an opponent doing it?
Models are models. The only times that I've ever been irritated by someone using older models was one WAAC guy at the local store who specifically bought older rhinos to use as Exorcists, because he could hide two of them side by side behind a lengthwise new rhino, allowing them to shoot over the rhino, but be pretty much immune to return fire from the front arcs.
Lol. Yeah, people have been _claiming_ that since about the day after the second version of the RTB01 space marines were released. Never been true.
55709
Post by: 60mm
Old school is cool!
65336
Post by: rems01
I'd let you use them.
Personally, i have a lot of the old rhinos. People are fine with me using them, most react with 'cool old school rhinos' rather than getting nit picky about the size.
65363
Post by: Chuck_Traynor
There is no "letting" about it. It's a GW model that represents a unit currently still in the game. You don;t even have to go the "counts as" route to use that old model. So it's totally legal under GW's rules for competition and in-store play.
Granted, anyone can just refuse to play you for any reason good or bad. But doing so in tournement would cost them a forfiet and if they did so in a friendly game just because they thought your trukk models were too small/ugly/whatever for their taste then they are an idiiot/ TFG and you shold not be playing them anyway.
And yes, old skool is kool.
I don't know if it's true but I heard that you must have the most recent model to use it in an offical GW setting.
That is incorrect, sir. GW tired that once about 15 years ago and it lasted all of two months before they changed the rules back to "any GW model is legal".
4543
Post by: Phydox
insaniak wrote: When Gorkamorka was released, the Trukk didn't exist as a 40K unit. It was created for Gorkamorka, and then added into the 40K list in the 3rd edition codex. Ah, GorkaMorka. I know a lot of ork armies started with that set. I know mine did. GorkaMorka came with 2 trukks, 2 trakks, about 20 orks...$69.99 I have seven of those trukks in my army, and field them with pride. Point- "Man, those trukks are small!" player grumbles Counter point- "Yeah I know, they're easy to surround and blow up guys inside." you respond with feigned sadness. If you think those trukks are small, you should see the orks that came w/ GorkaMorka!
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
It's a legal, official GW model. If you used the cardboard Ork Dreadnought from the 2nd ed starter set, I'd say the same thing. Bring it on!
29914
Post by: martin74
I have no problem with it.
65363
Post by: Chuck_Traynor
Brother SRM wrote:It's a legal, official GW model. If you used the cardboard Ork Dreadnought from the 2nd ed starter set, I'd say the same thing. Bring it on!
People keep saying that and it comes up in just about every "is this legal" threda on every GW forum I've ever read, but I honestly never have seen that cut out used. Ever. Even back when I played 2nd edition I never saw any ork player use it.
That being said, you are 100% correct in that it's table legal.
99
Post by: insaniak
No, it really doesn't. The cut-out dreadnought was intended to bolster the ork forces for one of the scenarios in the 2nd edition starter set, to even things up a little bit since the set was a little skewed in the marines' favour otherwise. It was never intended to be a playable miniature beyond that, and the fact that people persist in claiming that it is has never failed to amaze me. It's not a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout.
16286
Post by: Necroshea
insaniak wrote:
No, it really doesn't. The cut-out dreadnought was intended to bolster the ork forces for one of the scenarios in the 2nd edition starter set, to even things up a little bit since the set was a little skewed in the marines' favour otherwise. It was never intended to be a playable miniature beyond that, and the fact that people persist in claiming that it is has never failed to amaze me. It's not a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout.
I can see it now, custom cardboard dreads everywhere. Put your painting skills to the test.
61140
Post by: Micah da ork
I would have no problem with these trukks. Personally, I like playing against and just seeing the "old school" models every so often. The only difference in your advantage would be cover saves, and templates scattering off of you. These two items might slightly frustrate me as a player playing against you. But if it is still an official mini, go for it!
16286
Post by: Necroshea
Micah da ork wrote:I would have no problem with these trukks. Personally, I like playing against and just seeing the "old school" models every so often. The only difference in your advantage would be cover saves, and templates scattering off of you. These two items might slightly frustrate me as a player playing against you. But if it is still an official mini, go for it!
One time I went to a tourny with a rather shamefully assembled leman russ. We're talking chimera treads, leman body, it might have had the actual barrel. Because the proportions were off, I really never argued about things hitting it or anything like that.
In your example, if a blast landed pretty close to me I would simply say it hit and move on. It's not like trukks are supposed to last long anyways.
33172
Post by: ChiliPowderKeg
It's obvious the intentions of its use aren't beardy so I don't see why not.
49693
Post by: Godless-Mimicry
If someone refused to allow you the use of that Trukk, then they aren't worth playing mate.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Many older players still have (or remember) the older, smaller models and think they're cool. You might get some complaints if they're so much smaller that you can hide them behind the new version and actually do so. Otherwise it's fine - they're smaller so harder to target but they also have a harder time drawing LOS for themself.
36866
Post by: Big Mek Dattrukk
You bring those to my table, the first thing I would do is gawk at them. then treat them like any other vehicle. only TFG would try to deny you the use of them. after all, the old (and shorter) Space Marine models are still legal, and the old termies, on regular sized bases because they were the only base at the time, are legal. why would a shorter trukk not be?
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Firstly, a disclaimer - If you showed up with an old ork army that contained lots of old stuff including a bunch of old trukks, I wouldn't even bat an eye. Of course you could play with it.
That said...
Valkyrie wrote:It's an official GW model
Maenus_Rajhana wrote: It's an official model
Brother SRM wrote:It's a legal, official GW model. !
No, it's not. It WAS an official model. It IS not an official model.
The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently. Even if a model was, at one point, official, that doesn't mean it still is official now. As such, you can't hide behind this argument.
Of course, most people will still let you use old models, so long as they're put on the correct base, but as the trukk model HAS no base, the fact that it's 50% smaller is actually relevant, unlike with old termies on new 40mm bases.
If you're not using the tininess of the trukk to your advantage, no one should ever complain, especially since, as said, we're talking about orks, who can show up with any goofy scratchbuilt thing and call it "offishul!". That said, you're doing it on a gentleman's agreement. If someone made a stink in a tournament, I think I'd have to hold my nose and side with them on this issue.
Just like if someone showed up with an eldar falcon
or a tiny old dreadnought not on a base
Saying "yeah, well 25 years ago, this was a legal model" doesn't have much weight on whether it's a legal model now.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
My only problem would be that I hate most of GW's vehicles from second edition/ early third edition; they were all ugly as sin. The Rhinos, Predators, Land Raiders, Land Speeders, Trukks, Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, none of them were ever aesthetically pleasing to me in the slightest.
However I would let you use them as they're legal.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ailaros wrote:No, it's not. It WAS an official model. It IS not an official model.
Just curious... From where exactly are you getting your definition of 'official model'...?
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Where are you?
I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".
102
Post by: Jayden63
I have five of the suckers that I bought when 3rd ed Ork were newly released and still use them. Never had a problem, probably never will.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Ailaros wrote:Where are you?
I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".
It's a Games Workshop model. It is allowed to be used in games made by Games Workshop. It doesn't need to be the most up to date model, so long as it's a 40k model. The rulebook even mentions this and says that you can keep models on the bases they came on, even if they were something like Terminators who now come on larger bases than they did back in the day. It says you should consider larger bases, but you don't have to. GW has never said anything along the lines of "You can't use old Rhinos, you have to buy new ones!" or whatever. Go nuts, use old models, and be awesome.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ailaros wrote:Where are you?
I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".
I'm not seeing anywhere in the rulebook that defines which models are or are not considered 'official'... So, again, on what are you basing your definition?
14283
Post by: Rakeeb
He appears to be using the following definition, as seen in his post:
Ailaros wrote:The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently.
99
Post by: insaniak
Yes, I get that. What I'm asking is why.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
insaniak wrote:Yes, I get that. What I'm asking is why.
Well, the first sentence of the rulebook is "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 20,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." That implies that in order for the rules to apply to whatever you're putting down on the table, said things must be citadel miniatures. Or, rather, it doesn't need to be a citadel miniature in order to be official, but citadel miniatures do qualify.
Then it gets to a linguistic one. Any current citadel miniature has the possibility to be currently official. Just like any blue-colored mini has the possibility to be blue-colored and official, or one that smells like cheese has the possibility of being cheese-odored and official.
How, then do we know that a non-current miniature is currently official? It doesn't explicitly say that they're not (it doesn't say a lot of things. Is there a prohibition against using WHFB minis in a 40k game? Hard to say yes to that one, looking at demons), but neither does it explicitly say that they do.
Therefore, we have current minis that we can say ARE official, and we have old minis that we can say WERE official, but we can't say that they ARE official still. Hence...
Ailaros wrote:Saying "yeah, well 25 years ago, this was a legal model" doesn't have much weight on whether it's a legal model now.
... and this might not matter, except, that in the case of trukks here, the two models behave substantially different, unlike, say, something modelled on a base most of the time.
You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct. You have a model you know is currently official, and one you don't. You should therefore give precedence to that one that you know that is, over the one you don't.
99
Post by: insaniak
Why not? Does it stop being a citadel model when they stop making it?
You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct
Why?
10667
Post by: Fifty
insaniak wrote:
You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct
Why?
My exact question.
There are several ways for me to pay my gas bill. They are all correct.
There are several routes to my local Tesco. They are all correct.
I think the problem is even harder to define though. GW itself does not say that any model is "official", so how can any model by unofficial? As GW seem to actively discourage competitive play, they choose not to set what is and is not official. We, not being GW, are not able to decide what is and is not official. Thus, nothing is either official or unofficial.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
insaniak wrote:Why not? Does it stop being a citadel model when they stop making it?
No, but you missed my point.
A model that has the adjective "citadel" and "current" is different than a model that has the adjectives "citadel" and "old". It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.
Unless you can find some place where "currently official" is something that, once applied to a model, applies to it in perpetuity, regardless of any changes to the model line.
insaniak wrote:You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct
Why?
Because the new one is tiny. It's not just half the width and length, it's half the height as well. It is going to be much, much easier to get cover saves with the old trukk than the new ones, and it's going to be much, much easier to hide it out of LOS completely. This substantially effects the survivability of the model, thus your choice of model is substantial to how it plays in the game.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ailaros wrote:A model that has the adjective "citadel" and "current" is different than a model that has the adjectives "citadel" and "old".
Well yes, if you choose to apply arbitrary tags to models, they are different. If I label my standing space marine 'tallie' and my kneeling space marine 'shortie' they become different... and since they function differently in the game, I can only then use one of them? Which one, since they're both current models...?
It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.
And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?
Because the new one is tiny. It's not just half the width and length, it's half the height as well. It is going to be much, much easier to get cover saves with the old trukk than the new ones, and it's going to be much, much easier to hide it out of LOS completely. This substantially effects the survivability of the model, thus your choice of model is substantial to how it plays in the game.
No, I understand that it functions differently. I'm asking why you think that you can't have two models that function differently in the game. Where do the rules make this distinction?
52163
Post by: Shandara
insaniak wrote:
It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.
And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?
Nowhere, there is but one condition: ' The 'Citadel Miniatures used to play ... are referred to as 'models' ..' I don't think the rules mention 'citadel' after this mention on pg. 2.
They certainly don't mention 'current' or 'official' in any way.
99
Post by: insaniak
Shandara wrote:Nowhere, there is but one condition: ' The 'Citadel Miniatures used to play ... are referred to as 'models' ..'
Which, when you stop and actually read it, isn't so much a condition as simply an assumption that people will use Citadel Miniatures to play 40K...
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Rakeeb wrote:He appears to be using the following definition, as seen in his post:
Ailaros wrote:The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently.
Too bad that definition seems to have been gak straight out his ass.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
For the same reason that the official version of 40k is the one that is currently produced. Once GW drops a product it's no longer part of the game.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
GW has always supported using outmoded models in the game, though. Whether just as themselves or via counts-as.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Mannahnin wrote:GW has always supported using outmoded models in the game, though. Whether just as themselves or via counts-as.
Except one important part of counts-as is that the size of the model has to be the same. By ending production of of the old model and replacing it with a new one GW is saying "this is the size of this unit", so any counts-as model has to be roughly the same size. If it was just an aesthetic difference (for example, the old kans vs. the new ones) this wouldn't be a problem, but when you're talking about models with non-trivial size differences it's time to buy a new one.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:For the same reason that the official version of 40k is the one that is currently produced. Once GW drops a product it's no longer part of the game.
You realise that logic is probably going to render at least half of the current codexes as no longer 'official' then, since GW won't be still currently printing them?
Peregrine wrote:Except one important part of counts-as is that the size of the model has to be the same.
Is it? There have been any number of people running Squat armies using Marine or Guard rules who might be inclined to disagree on just how important that is.
By ending production of of the old model and replacing it with a new one GW is saying "this is the size of this unit",...
To be honest, given the scale discrepancies in their ranges since, well, forever, I very much doubt GW are even considering that sort of level of technicality when they create most new models. In most cases, models have been made bigger so that more detail can be crammed onto them, not because GW thought that regular Guardsmen would be hideously unbalanced unless they made them 3mm taller
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Query: is it a GW model, yes
Is it in fact a GW Trukk, yes
Is it legal, it certainly is. Not seeing why people are having issues here. It's like Old termies on small bases, legal as that's the bases that were supplied. Got a problem with it, I don't care cuz thems the rules
34242
Post by: -Loki-
insaniak wrote:
No, it really doesn't. The cut-out dreadnought was intended to bolster the ork forces for one of the scenarios in the 2nd edition starter set, to even things up a little bit since the set was a little skewed in the marines' favour otherwise. It was never intended to be a playable miniature beyond that, and the fact that people persist in claiming that it is has never failed to amaze me. It's not a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout.
Actually, I recall someone on these boards talking about being at a GW tournament where someone used it. It was ruled that since it was an official GW product it could be used.
34216
Post by: Tinsil
The model isn't even that old, and it's not that different. There's no huge difference like some of the really old models.
This version of the trukk isn't even very old.
99
Post by: insaniak
That would depend somewhat on your definition of 'old'... Gorkamorka was released in 1997.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:You realise that logic is probably going to render at least half of the current codexes as no longer 'official' then, since GW won't be still currently printing them?
But they ARE still selling existing stocks, releasing FAQs and updates, etc, and they haven't released a new codex that replaces the old one. This isn't true of the old models in question, which are no longer supported or recognized by GW.
(And it's more than half, since the print runs are over before the item goes on sale.)
Is it? There have been any number of people running Squat armies using Marine or Guard rules who might be inclined to disagree on just how important that is.
Except that's entirely dependent on their opponents being nice about it. I would refuse to play against a Squat player who tried to claim cover/ LOS blocking based on the actual height of the model instead of counting it as being the same height as actual IG/marine models.
To be honest, given the scale discrepancies in their ranges since, well, forever, I very much doubt GW are even considering that sort of level of technicality when they create most new models. In most cases, models have been made bigger so that more detail can be crammed onto them, not because GW thought that regular Guardsmen would be hideously unbalanced unless they made them 3mm taller
Maybe for current models getting slight updates, but we're talking about a lot more than a 3mm difference here. For example, terminators on 25mm bases instead of 40mm bases. Automatically Appended Next Post: jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It's like Old termies on small bases, legal as that's the bases that were supplied. Got a problem with it, I don't care cuz thems the rules
Could you provide a quote and page number (in the 6th edition rulebook) for the rule allowing you to use old bases even when the base size for the unit has changed?
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I field(ed) my old OOP Ork Trukks when I need more than the three "new" ones that I have.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to tell me that I cannot field the three old Trukks that I have lovingly converted and painted...
But..
I make absolutely sure that I don't gain any advantages from running the small models, and so I have never had any problems.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Peregrine wrote:
Could you provide a quote and page number (in the 6th edition rulebook) for the rule allowing you to use old bases even when the base size for the unit has changed?
That would be on PG3 bottom left hand side. Models and Base Sizes, "mounted on the base they are supplied with"
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:Except that's entirely dependent on their opponents being nice about it.
To a certain extent, so is playing the game at all.
I would refuse to play against a Squat player who tried to claim cover/LOS blocking based on the actual height of the model instead of counting it as being the same height as actual IG/marine models.
Then you would be in a distinct minority, from my experience. Assuming that models
are a different size to what is actually on the table adds an extra later of complexity to everything for no real good reason.
Could you provide a quote and page number (in the 6th edition rulebook) for the rule allowing you to use old bases even when the base size for the unit has changed?
The base rules at the start of the book require models to be fielded on the base with which they are supplied, while also making allowances for scenic bases. There is no requirement to rebase your models just because GW starts selling them with a different size.
54605
Post by: We
Some people will argue anything
60134
Post by: Hetelic
What a pile of crap this thread is lol.
A citadel model stops being a citadel model when citadel make a new model for that unit. What? Really? Realllly???
Here in Scotland, the only rule enforced is that your army consists mostly of Citadel minatures. I understand this, and i agree with it. GW provide hobby shops for you to play and paint in comfort for free. The least they can ask is you only use their merchandise while there.
A Citadel trukk is a citadel trukk, wheither it is 20 days or 20 years old. The game uses line of sight rules. If your stunning old-skool model gets a slight advantage from being smaller. Congrats, thats your reward for playing the game so long. It's like getting a reward from your cellphone company for being a long time customer.
If you show up with squats, and use them as guardmen, and tell me you can get a cover save where a normal guardmen cannot.. I'll shake your hand for having such a lovely looking, and unique, army, and then let you roll your cover save.
Squats are people too you know
4820
Post by: Ailaros
insaniak wrote:If I label my standing space marine 'tallie' and my kneeling space marine 'shortie' they become different... and since they function differently in the game, I can only then use one of them? Which one, since they're both current models...?
If GW gives you the ability to make taller and shorter space marines with the space marines that you can go pick up off a shelf and buy right now, then there's no problem.
insaniak wrote:And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?
Where does the rulebook say you can use out of production models?
Furthermore, if models that have been replaced with new models are still currently legal, then why not everything else? Why not mix some old rules into your game? Why not use stuff from old codices. If the definition of "currently legal" is "anything ever produced", then you should be able to bring in anything GW ever made, not just old models.
I'm sure there are some slaanesh players who would LOVE to play with some old, tiny terminators and have lash of submission back, in addition to their current FNP and other goodies. I'd also certainly welcome the old 10 point stormies or the old 100 point basilisk. Should I be able to play with them in that format just because I have the old rulebook?
What about the old conversion beamer that removes terrain? What about the old psychic powers that let you pick up your opponent's vehicles and throw them at their other units? Why shouldn't I be able to include old vortex grenades again if I still have the proper old rulebook and codices?
Where does it end?
60134
Post by: Hetelic
Ailaros wrote:insaniak wrote:If I label my standing space marine 'tallie' and my kneeling space marine 'shortie' they become different... and since they function differently in the game, I can only then use one of them? Which one, since they're both current models...?
If GW gives you the ability to make taller and shorter space marines with the space marines that you can go pick up off a shelf and buy right now, then there's no problem.
insaniak wrote:And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?
Where does the rulebook say you can use out of production models?
Furthermore, if models that have been replaced with new models are still currently legal, then why not everything else? Why not mix some old rules into your game? Why not use stuff from old codices. If the definition of "currently legal" is "anything ever produced", then you should be able to bring in anything GW ever made, not just old models.
I'm sure there are some slaanesh players who would LOVE to play with some old, tiny terminators and have lash of submission back, in addition to their current FNP and other goodies. I'd also certainly welcome the old 10 point stormies or the old 100 point basilisk. Should I be able to play with them in that format just because I have the old rulebook?
What about the old conversion beamer that removes terrain? What about the old psychic powers that let you pick up your opponent's vehicles and throw them at their other units? Why shouldn't I be able to include old vortex grenades again if I still have the proper old rulebook and codices?
Where does it end?
But you are right. You -can- play 3rd edition rules. You -can- use an out of date codex. It's your hobby, and you can do whatever the hell you like, as long as your oppenent/ buddy agrees. GW provides a framework. An Edition of rules that is occassionally upgraded. How you use those rules is entirely up to you.
50012
Post by: Crimson
I hope you are not wielding any illegal old Leman Russes or Chimeras, Ailaros...
99
Post by: insaniak
Ailaros wrote:If the definition of "currently legal" is "anything ever produced",
Would now be a bad time to point out that I have never claimed that the definition of currently legal is 'everything ever produced'...? In fact, I haven't provided a definition at all, because I'm not aware of the existence of one.
What I've been doing is asking just where you are getting your definition from... Which you have yet to answer.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Ailaros wrote:Where does the rulebook say you can use out of production models?
Oh thats shaky ground right there, ambiguity in any form of contract such as rules in a game favours the subject to the rules not the person who wrote it.
If it does not explicitly state you must only use the "current" GW model then you really have no basis to stop anyone using an older model.
GW set the rules of the game if they do not state old models cant be used then the player has no restriction placed on them, if its a GW model old or new its valid as the only condition set is thats its a citadel model, and the trukk from gorkamorka certainly is.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Ailaros wrote:Where does the rulebook say you can use out of production models? You know that part people keep pointing to, about basing requirements? Right there. Where it says you are under no obligation to rebase old models if a newer model is on a different sized base. Because if you were not allowed to use out of production models, they would not be putting this in there. On top of that, please point out exactly where the rulebook says you can not use OOP models. Because while you ask to see rules stating you can, you have yet to show any reference from the rulebook stating you can't.
4543
Post by: Phydox
I could never even find any ruling about using round bases. If you buy and use a box of fantasy orks to play a feral list, they come supplied with square bases. Based on the rules shouldnt they be fine too?
I see this a lot, but never see any complaints about the new vs old juggernaut, or the fact that orc bikers STILL dont even come provided with bases.
99
Post by: insaniak
Phydox wrote:I could never even find any ruling about using round bases. If you buy and use a box of fantasy orks to play a feral list, they come supplied with square bases. Based on the rules shouldnt they be fine too?
Not exactly, no.
While it again isn't explicitly stated, there is a general assumption made that you will use the correct model for the unit that you are fielding. Counts-as or substituting different models are commonly accepted, but the general practice is that these models should be fielded on the appropriate base for what they are supposed to be. So if you are using Fantasy Orcs in place of 40K Orcs, they should be based as the 40K model would be.
Having said that, this is just common convention, not a rule. There is no rule in 40K stipulating that bases should be round, or that you need to use a 40K Ork Boy model to represent a 40K Ork Boy.
Some players object to square bases because they feel that the base shape has an impact on the way the unit functions (it does, but it is generally minimal) or because they just dislike it aesthetically. From my experience, though, the vast majority won't care less what bases you use, so long as they are reasonably close to the size they should be.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
-Loki- wrote:You know that part people keep pointing to, about basing requirements? Right there. Where it says you are under no obligation to rebase old models if a newer model is on a different sized base. Because if you were not allowed to use out of production models, they would not be putting this in there.
It says nothing at all about not being required to re-base models. The statement in 6th edition says two things:
1) The rules assume you're using the bases supplied with the model.
and
2) If you have a model with the wrong size base, you can re-base it to the correct one.
So, for example, you need to base your current terminators on 40mm bases, and if you happened to accidentally get a pack of 25mm bases in the box you can buy some 40mm bases and use them instead. It says nothing at all about allowing you to use old models on incorrect bases.
On top of that, please point out exactly where the rulebook says you cannot use OOP models. Because while you ask to see rules stating you can, you have yet to show any reference from the rulebook stating you can't.
It doesn't have to, just like it doesn't have to say that you can't use an old version of your codex (at least without making special arrangements with your opponent to change the rules and allow it). Just like in every game it's assumed that the rules are about the current edition of the game. Automatically Appended Next Post: Crimson wrote:I hope you are not wielding any illegal old Leman Russes or Chimeras, Ailaros...
Except that would very clearly fit under the "counts-as" rule, since the old kits are almost identical externally to the new ones, and the very slight differences have no meaningful impact on gameplay. Unless you're being stubborn just for the sake of winning a forum argument there's no reasonable objection to using them.
This is entirely different from using old models which DO have significant differences in gameplay.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Hetelic wrote:What a pile of crap this thread is lol.
A citadel model stops being a citadel model when citadel make a new model for that unit. What? Really? Realllly???
Here in Scotland, the only rule enforced is that your army consists mostly of Citadel minatures. I understand this, and i agree with it. GW provide hobby shops for you to play and paint in comfort for free. The least they can ask is you only use their merchandise while there.
A Citadel trukk is a citadel trukk, wheither it is 20 days or 20 years old. The game uses line of sight rules. If your stunning old-skool model gets a slight advantage from being smaller. Congrats, thats your reward for playing the game so long. It's like getting a reward from your cellphone company for being a long time customer.
You could also just buy nine old trukks of ebay, they are very easy to get. Yay for getting rewarded for using ebay
34242
Post by: -Loki-
You know what? This thread has made me realize that I'm so glad that I have my own group of friends to play with, otherwise I'd be suffering from a huge case of
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Bookwrack wrote:Ailaros wrote:Where does it end?
At the models
Why?
insaniak wrote:What I've been doing is asking just where you are getting your definition from... Which you have yet to answer.
Well...
Ailaros wrote:Then it gets to a linguistic one. Any current citadel miniature has the possibility to be currently official. Just like any blue-colored mini has the possibility to be blue-colored and official, or one that smells like cheese has the possibility of being cheese-odored and official.
Therefore, we have current minis that we can say ARE official, and we have old minis that we can say WERE official, but we can't say that they ARE official still.You have a model you know is currently official, and one you don't. You should therefore give precedence to that one that you know that is, over the one you don't.
How can a model be currently official if it's not current?
As best I can tell, you would need to have an explicit rule written somewhere to clarify this, because otherwise, once something loses the adjective "current" it loses all other adjectives that rely on that adjective being applicable.
I mean, if there was a rule that said a model needed to be blue colored to be official, and you took a blue colored model and painted it red, would it still be official? No, because it's no longer blue. As such, you can say that a model that used to be official is one that was official, but I don't see why it still is, a few decades on.
In any case, as you can see from my first post in this thread, the point isn't to figure out how to exclude people's miniatires. The point is that players who are forcing models on others is silly. It's a reaction to "my models are official, you must let me use them or you're a terrible person". As per my hope, things have quickly moved to the idea of "there ARE no official models", the second attitude invalidating the first.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ailaros wrote:How can a model be currently official if it's not current?
Where does the rulebook reference 'currently official' models?
Or even define 'official' models in any way whatsoever?
..., because otherwise, once something loses the adjective "current" it loses all other adjectives that rely on that adjective being applicable.
If the 'current' was actually a requirement in the rules, sure. But as far as I can see from the discussion so far, it's just something that you made up. So a model 'losing' that adjective has little effect on the actual game outside of your own games.
As per my hope, things have quickly moved to the idea of "there ARE no official models", the second attitude invalidating the first.
Then why waste everyone's time presenting fictional subcategories of 'officialness'...?
44326
Post by: DeffDred
I'm really confused by this thread.
So it doesn't matter how old the GW product is? So you guys would be fine with me using the Chaos 3.5 codex? It says it's meant to be used with the Warhammer 40k rulebook. Not which edition.
Also, I do like that none of you seem to have a problem if I use my tiny little Avatar of Khaine (with spear!) and hide him behind a current Striking Scorpion.
52163
Post by: Shandara
There are no _rules_ against using old codexes with the new rulebook. It's purely tournaments/players themselves that define which codex you can use (usually the latest).
But you might have a problem with many codex entries being incompatible with the new rules.
99
Post by: insaniak
DeffDred wrote:So it doesn't matter how old the GW product is? So you guys would be fine with me using the Chaos 3.5 codex? It says it's meant to be used with the Warhammer 40k rulebook. Not which edition.
In a casual game, there are no 'official' limits on what can and can not be used, as GW do not define what material and/or models are or are not 'correct' for use. So yes, if you and your opponent agree, there is nothing stopping you from using old codexes, although they're generally going to require some tweaking to work within the current rules.
The requirement to only use the most recent codex is something created entirely by players falling into the 'If it isn't legal in a tournament, you can't do it in casual games' mindset which seems to be strangely specific to Warhammer 40K. D&D players have been adapting books from previous editions of that game to work within current rules for longer than I've been alive... The idea that the creator of the game needs to tell you what you can and can't use in your own games is just crazy.
Also, I do like that none of you seem to have a problem if I use my tiny little Avatar of Khaine (with spear!) and hide him behind a current Striking Scorpion.
As with any similar situations, outside of a tournament setting most players would just think it was cool to see such an old model on the table.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
DeffDred wrote:I'm really confused by this thread.
So it doesn't matter how old the GW product is? So you guys would be fine with me using the Chaos 3.5 codex? It says it's meant to be used with the Warhammer 40k rulebook. Not which edition.
Also, I do like that none of you seem to have a problem if I use my tiny little Avatar of Khaine (with spear!) and hide him behind a current Striking Scorpion.
No, I would say you can use old models with no restrictions. But you would need explicit permission to use old rules that have been superceeded.
16286
Post by: Necroshea
insaniak wrote:The idea that the creator of the game needs to tell you what you can and can't use in your own games is just crazy.
I can't speak for anyone else but my group doesn't really touch things like forgeworld and older codexes because we play to get better with the current ruleset so that we can do well if a tournament pops up near us. We'd rather spend all our time playing and having fun while also being legal under standard tourny rules rather then playing with models that will never see use outside of the uncommon casual game.
99
Post by: insaniak
If you're gaming specifically as tournament practice, then certainly it's better to confine yourself to what your local tournaments allow... although it does appear that more and more tournaments are allowing Forgeworld these days, even if only allowing specific units with TO approval.
But most players aren't going to tournaments... which makes the perceived need to play to tournament standard a little weird. Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, this discussion actually has me rather tempted to dig out the 4th edition Marine codex and see how much tweaking it would need to get my old Drop Podding Apothecary-heavy army back on the table with 6th edition...
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
The only issues I can see with the old truck models is if your truck explodes, you will certainly lose some boys because they can't all fit where the truck was. That might be a reasonable tradeoff for the smaller size and lower profile of the older truck. If I was playing an opponent with old trucks I'd make that pretty clear before the game. If they wanted it both ways (smaller size, lower profile for los but still magically considered the same size as current trucks if they explode) I think I'd take issue.
I myself have about 4 of them, 2 were converted into forgeworld burna wagon things, the other two I've run as trucks in the past but only for small nob units (3-5).
56400
Post by: Orktavius
I'd play you, I'd accept them as trukks but I'd shame you for having ugly arse trukks :< but that's just cause I HATE the old orc trukks/bikes/buggies with a passion.
Disclaimer: I convert the new ork trukks into ork buggies
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
My friend and I play his 3.5 Chaos dex against my 4th Edition Iron Hands dex (with the Chapter Traits, you know the one) all the time, using 6th Edition Rules.
We do have to apply some common sense though...
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Faced my mate's Orks yesterday and he'd reassigned the one old Trukk to stand in for a Warbuggy. He felt it would look a bit odd lined up next to his two current Trukks.
About the size problem concerning placing passengers after it explodes, BTW... That's a good point seeing how Trukks usually get destroyed even faster than a Dark Eldar Raider.
19728
Post by: liquidjoshi
As long as it's on the right base and made of plastic, metal or resin then I'm good with it.
As others have said, Old Skool = cool.
74952
Post by: nareik
Massive necro, but I just remembered this thread, and another salient piece of information;
People were dicussing whether out of production models were still appropriate for use in 40k.
Well, the old Truck is back in production by GW and sold under liscence by Revell.
https://www.revell-shop.de/en/Products/Warhammer-Build-Paint/Space-Ork-Trukkboyz.html?listtype=search&searchparam=warhammer
11 Euros for a truck, 4 boyz, 4 paints, a brush, poly cement and some decals!
113188
Post by: pismakron
There are six boxes of these old-school miniatures available.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/build_paint
171
Post by: Lorek
Yeah, I don't even know how you managed to dredge this up.
Locking thread.
|
|