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.

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.