Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would not play a player using this unless they had no choice or were just new to the hobby.

since when do we have to use the bloody current models?
how old are the eldar jets?
sorry, but thats bs IMO
i hate some of the new stuff, the older models look great compared to some of the gak they call models now.

ShumaGorath wrote:I would not play a player using this unless they had no choice or were just new to the hobby.

why not?

"I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules."

OK, I believe in following the rules. You must believe in following your own rules, because you just made one up.

And why the hell wouldn't you play someone who used it? Who cares for crying out loud, it is a really cool old model. Even if you put it on a bigger base, it is still True LOS, it would still be just as easy to hide him.

Why make a stink about it? If someone has a cool, old painted model, and they are following the rules, then its all good and more fun to see some variety on the table.

Besides in the orginal fluff, the avatar was an eldar that was infused with the power of Khaine, the old model is much truer to that idea. In later versions of the fluff, he got bigger because it looked more impressive.

Anyway, this is a stupid argument, not like you guys are very likely to ever see anyone with the model anyway. In my nearly 15 years of playing 40K, I have played ONE game against it, and it was really fun.

I have played this before. My opponent just finished his brand new eldar army and went out of the way to find this mini. I did not know this at the time of the game. It just blended in with the rest. I assaulted him as he was next to another squad. He then announced that it was the avatar and proceeded to eat my assault squad. He made no mention of this and was being rather circumspect about it. I was not happy at all!

I play for fun. I could care less if I win or lose as long as the game was fun. This one little tactic put a bad taste in my mouth and spoiled the game. In this case it was a WAAC move. This is why it is a bad idea. If the player had a whole old school edar army I would not have had a problem with it. Hell I might have been ok if the player had pointed it out and acknowledged that it does offer a bit of an advantage.

I love older models and use them when I can. If rules are not there for that model I will use it as a counts as instead.

This one comes down to, yes you can do it but should you? If you need this advantage then I say learn to play better and stop trying to cheat your opponent. If you do this for the cool models, I say use it as counts as. If you have a very old eldar army, I say let your opponent know. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I find it amusing that so many people hunt for the smallest advantage and will defend it with venom on their lips. When it is "officially" banned they will move on to the next rules "iffy" thing. It often comes with a certain type of player that must win, but can't seem to do it with out bending the rules to their advantage. I say learn to play better.

It is for these reasons that people are saying, "I would not play that person." Not as much because of the model but the mentality that comes from playing that type of person. More often than not, some one using this tactic would not enjoyable to play against. Legal? Yes. Fun to play? No. Lame advantage? Yes.

Just my 2 cents...

Sha1emade wrote:

It is for these reasons that people are saying, "I would not play that person." Not as much because of the model but the mentality that comes from playing that type of person. More often than not, some one using this tactic would not enjoyable to play against. Legal? Yes. Fun to play? No. Lame advantage? Yes.

Just my 2 cents...

and a good 2 cents at that. The problem isn't the model, and it's never the model. It's always the person playing it.

Polonius wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would not play a player using this unless they had no choice or were just new to the hobby.

why not?

Too small and easy to hide, it's an unfair advantage granted by the size of the model itself. This is a game as well as a modeling hobby. I don't like it when the modeling gets in the way of the games functionality and fairness. Avatars are very high priority targets, and are large for a reason. A tiny model especially in the current ruleset harms the avatar in no way (its doesn't need line of sight) but makes it hard for me to take it down (It can be screened by ANYTHING).

Has anyone brought up the old, infantry-sized Obliterators yet? I know someone would be pissed if I tried to pull the same crap with that. This argument is stupid, and your models should, at the very least, be counted as the same size as a current version of the model.

Hellfury wrote:

oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.

So the [edit]CURRENT Eldar Avatar[/edit] model made over 15 years ago was made with 3rd, 4th or 5th edition in mind?

GW certainly are some seriously talented games designers to pull that trick off.

I wonder why we have so many debates over rules if that is true.

Must be just stupid people being stupid.

I think I heard Jervis say that once.

You've not made a retort that proves me wrong only posted witless diatribe.

Do you know that the 2nd version of the Avatar (2nd edition) had a square base? Do you know that the 3rd version of the Avatar (3rd edition) even though it used the same model had a round base? Do you know that SM dreadnoughts used to not even use a base? Model evolution is abundantly clear, but just because GW has not changed the model recently means nothing other than it's current version is perfectly fine.

What about the older terminators - the RT era metal ones (which I think were a little smaller, or at least less dramatically posed than even the later plastics) or the original Space Hulk plastic ones? They're a lot easier to hide as well.

So, two questions:

1) Is it legal? Yes.
2) Is it sporting? Maybe, depends on the player.

The old oblits don't bother me as much. As they are still pretty obvious as to what they are. The size difference is not so great. They are like the older termies. I still use the older termies on smaller bases. I have ran this army for years and no one has ever said anything about them. In the same army I have newer termies as well with the larger bases. With older termies and oblits they are still infantry models and not MC so few people will mind. Any advantage they might have is pretty small. Not to the degree as a tiny Avatar.

On that note the funniest and lamest thing I have seen from the same edlar player was a wraithlord who was laying down like a sniper. His feet were crossed and his profile was so low it looked like it got stepped on by a titan. Once again it is the player that makes all the difference. Lets just say neither model truly surprised me.

oni wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.

So the [edit]CURRENT Eldar Avatar[/edit] model made over 15 years ago was made with 3rd, 4th or 5th edition in mind?

GW certainly are some seriously talented games designers to pull that trick off.

I wonder why we have so many debates over rules if that is true.

Must be just stupid people being stupid.

I think I heard Jervis say that once.

You've not made a retort that proves me wrong only posted witless diatribe.

Ohhh wanna be nasty? Ok, lets dance.

You said current models are designed for current rules. I was retorting to your blanket statement that a model that was designed over 15 years ago cannot be designed for rules used today. The rules evolve but the models from previous sculpts have never been cited by GW as being illegal unless the equipment for such is removed entirely from the rules (an example of such is the SM razorback TL Plasmagun/Lascannon option that was removed in 4th ed, but reinstated in 5th ed).

oni wrote:Do you know that the 2nd version of the Avatar (2nd edition) had a square base? Do you know that the 3rd version of the Avatar (3rd edition) even though it used the same model had a round base? Do you know that SM dreadnoughts used to not even use a base? Model evolution is abundantly clear, but just because GW has not changed the model recently means nothing other than it's current version is perfectly fine.

Yes, yes and yes. Thanks for the history lesson.
What does bases have to do with the evolution of models? All of the the models you mentioned that are based on the old bases (or lack thereof as in the case of the SM dreadnought) are still perfectly legal. They are afterall the bases (or lack thereof) that were supplied with the models. Looking at the 'current' 5th ed 40K rules that is all that is required for basing.

No one is disputing the current version of the eldar avatar as not being 'perfectly fine'. The dispute is whether the older model is legal or not. So far I have not seen anyone give a good reason (your rather catty response included) or legal basis for disputing such legality of the old RT area Eldar Avatar use in a 40K game.

Can you cite the rules that dispute my 'witless diatribe'?

I eagerly look forward to your obviously condescending rebuttal.

Does anyone have the rules for "Little Avi" (as I will call it)? The '91 rules? And how did those rules change in '93?
In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar. It would have been a model for something else, just a similar name (the 91 catalog does not say what it is an avatar of, just avatar).

Once again...Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It is obvious as to why you shouldn't, it provides an advantage that was not intended. The karn example above does not apply, Karn fights like he is a monsterous creature, not that he IS one. The avatar IS a MC and should be shown appropriately. I really don't wanna get involved in this but this is getting silly Oni and Hellfury. By RAW you can...because it doesn't say you can't. That is the crux of the argument. You can...but you should be ready to to called a douchtool for obvious reasons.

As I see it. This is just nerd rage over something that has a obvious answer. Yes you can and no you shouldn't. Both sides are right in those regards. But choosing to do so will not make you friends and you should expect this reaction, both on this thread and when you play at your FLGS. Unless you have a very very good reason to to this, like a old school edlar army people will just call it like they see it. Rules exploitation and WAAC mentality.

Just saying...

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar.

How? That's like saying that since in RT Marines were S3(4) T3 and in 2nd Ed they were S4 T4, then you therefore can't use them as Marines today because they're obviously not the same thing despite having the same name.

Your conclusion does not make logical sense. What rules a unit had in a former edition is irrelevant to what the model itself actually is.

Sha1emade wrote: By RAW you can...because it doesn't say you can't. That is the crux of the argument. You can...but you should be ready to to called a douchtool for obvious reasons.

As I see it. This is just nerd rage over something that has a obvious answer. Yes you can and no you shouldn't. Both sides are right in those regards. But choosing to do so will not make you friends and you should expect this reaction, both on this thread and when you play at your FLGS. Unless you have a very very good reason to to this, like a old school edlar army people will just call it like they see it. Rules exploitation and WAAC mentality.

Just saying...

Not because it doesnt say you cant, but because you can. There is a distinct difference there between those two mentalities and your post is grouping both of them into one lump sum that can only be described in such derogatory terms as "waac" and "tfg" if you do. I preffered your previous fair and balanced post that had a far less accusing tone on the topic.

The advantages gained by using a model that is 1/2" shorter than the current model are so slight, that I would be more worried about a dual nob biker army that some guy who has an old eldar avatar model that he wants to use. But thats a subjective view of abuse, like everything else in this thread.

But thats my perspective. None need adhere or apply to it.

Platuan4th wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In other words, if the '91 Little Avi was weaker and smaller, then that would validate the argument for disallowing the rules for the larger Avatar.

How? That's like saying that since in RT Marines were S3(4) T3 and in 2nd Ed they were S4 T4, then you therefore can't use them as Marines today because they're obviously not the same thing despite having the same name.

Your conclusion does not make logical sense. What rules a unit had in a former edition is irrelevant to what the model itself actually is.

For the most part I agree with you on rules not affecting models UNLESS the rules changed the model type. What I am accusing of happening here (and asking if anyone has the proof) was that a smaller model was dropped and a Monstrous creature was created.

So going to your example of RT Marines, this would be like the new rules calling dreadnoughts "Tactical Marines" and you try to use the RT marines as the "Tactical Marine" Dreadnoughts. This would not work because the "Tactical Marine" Dreadnought is HUGE and a vehicle while the RT marines are infantry.

That is my take. The new rules call their monstrous creature an Avatar. This puny model was also called Avatar 16 years ago, but it is not a monstrous creature.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:For the most part I agree with you on rules not affecting models UNLESS the rules changed the model type. What I am accusing of happening here (and asking if anyone has the proof) was that a smaller model was dropped and a Monstrous creature was created.

Then you won't get what you're looking for. I happen to have my 2nd Edition Codex: Eldar next to my computer, the rules for which the current Avatar model was created. There is nothing classing an Avatar as a Monstrous Creature in the book, nor in 2nd Edition, because there was no such thing in the 40K rules as a Monstrous Creature until 3rd Edition, there was only Infantry, Support Weapons, and Vehicles(anything an Infantry model was allowed to drive/pilot, like a Bike).

To be fair Hellfury I have seen this used in the worst possible scenario. For that reason I lump it into WAAC and tfg. Not everyone will use it for this reason but most will think that, myself included as I have been on that side of the issue. I believe you to be defending RAW. That is fine and a safe bet. What I am getting at is not the model but the player. Many, my guess is most, will use this not for the novelty of the old model or because of it is the only model they have but will use it for the sheer advantage it brings with it. That mentality makes for games that I do not enjoy. Others think this way as well. I have never said you were wrong or you can't do it. I was simply pointing out how others will look at you for using it. My reaction is tame compared to what others will do.

Also I was not taking your side or oni's. You are both right. Oni needs to be prepared to allow the model as it is legal. You should be prepared to get the stab eye from you opponent. Works both ways.

Platuan4th wrote:

Then you won't get what you're looking for. I happen to have my 2nd Edition Codex: Eldar next to my computer, the rules for which the current Avatar model was created. There is nothing classing an Avatar as a Monstrous Creature in the book, nor in 2nd Edition, because there was no such thing in the 40K rules as a Monstrous Creature until 3rd Edition, there was only Infantry, Support Weapons, and Vehicles(anything an Infantry model was allowed to drive/pilot, like a Bike).

Do you have the rules for the '91 model? (asking honestly, not as jerk)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Do you have the rules for the '91 model? (asking honestly, not as jerk)

No, I got in during 2nd Edition so I don't own any Books of the Astronomicon or anything else from RT.

0-1 Avatar ................ 300 points

M-6
WS-10
BS-10
S-8
T-8
W-7
i-10
A-5
LD-10



Wailing doom:

range:

short: 0-6
long: 6-12

Str - 8

Damage - D3

save modifier: -4
Armour pen: D6+D3+8

Special: Negates daemonic saves.

Special invulnerabilities: immune to heat based weapons such as: melta, plasma, flamer and equivalent grenade types.

Psychology: The Avatar cannot be affected by psychology in any form and will automatically pass any leadership tests he is called upon to take.

Iron Body: 2+ save, His save can never be reduced below 4+

Terror: The Avatar causes terror.




i had some spare time so i dug out the old dex

If you (any of you) were playing "Little Avi" at a tournament, and I pull out an assembled Normal Avatar and asked you to use that for our game, would you?

And if no, why not?

JD21290 wrote:0-1 Avatar ................ 300 points

M-6
WS-10
BS-10
S-8
T-8
W-7
i-10
A-5
LD-10



Wailing doom:

range:

short: 0-6
long: 6-12

Str - 8

Damage - D3

save modifier: -4
Armour pen: D6+D3+8

Special: Negates daemonic saves.

Special invulnerabilities: immune to heat based weapons such as: melta, plasma, flamer and equivalent grenade types.

Psychology: The Avatar cannot be affected by psychology in any form and will automatically pass any leadership tests he is called upon to take.

Iron Body: 2+ save, His save can never be reduced below 4+

Terror: The Avatar causes terror.




i had some spare time so i dug out the old dex

Thank you. Was this the RT rules or 2nd edition?

only 2nd, sorry, dont have the RT about :(

but i do randomly have some old junk like the old wargear book

Gen. Lee, the book you're looking for is the Warhammer 40,000 Compilation, released in 1991. This is the first time the Craftworld Eldar appeared(and thus the Avatar).

If no one posts the Warhammer Compilation rules for the avatar before tomorrow morning I will post them for you Lee, as I am not at home until then.

Sha1emade wrote:To be fair Hellfury I have seen this used in the worst possible scenario. For that reason I lump it into WAAC and tfg. Not everyone will use it for this reason but most will think that, myself included as I have been on that side of the issue. I believe you to be defending RAW. That is fine and a safe bet. What I am getting at is not the model but the player. Many, my guess is most, will use this not for the novelty of the old model or because of it is the only model they have but will use it for the sheer advantage it brings with it. That mentality makes for games that I do not enjoy. Others think this way as well. I have never said you were wrong or you can't do it. I was simply pointing out how others will look at you for using it. My reaction is tame compared to what others will do.

Also I was not taking your side or oni's. You are both right. Oni needs to be prepared to allow the model as it is legal. You should be prepared to get the stab eye from you opponent. Works both ways.

Fair enough.
I actually do use one and the only remarks I have ever seen towards it use is "what is that?" (from the kiddies) and "sweet. havent seen that in awhile" (from the vets). Admittedly, I havent played eldar in over a year, so I havent seen any opponents opinions regarding its use first hand since well before the release of 5th ed.

I agree about its how the player uses it. Luckily the people I play mostly against here arent utter gaks so I do retain some semblance of faith in the wargaming community however sparse that faith may be.

If you are a fun and good player... I would not mind in the slightest. But yes it is the player. If your group doesn't have a problem with letting you use it then that speaks more for you then of them. Unless your group is hyper competitive and allow every rules twist than you are probably not TFG so you have little to worry about so it is a non issue in your case. However if used in a tournament with a player that might not know you, you might get a different reaction. If one of my buddies did this I would be ok unless it was only used for the advantage it provides. For the record I love the model and did spend some time admiring it. Wish it was painted better.

I don't think I would have a problem if the model was pointed out in pre-game as being the avatar.
Getting it sprung on me at turn 2 would piss me off.

I saw Ghazkull mentioned earlier. Ghazkull's old model shouldn't be used as Ghaz because his equipment has changed.
That model is clearly not wearing mega-armor. (see Marneus Calgar)

Also, maybe I am wrong, but wasn't the Lil Avatar used in epic in later years? or is there another sculpt?