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.

The rule states it must use the base it cam with, I see nothing illegal about it.

My friend has one of these, I thought it was a Farseer. He got scaled up in later editions. It is a really cool looking model though, I like it.

jabbakahut wrote:Back in the day, friend would use it, in his Epic army.

Reecius wrote:The rule states it must use the base it cam with, I see nothing illegal about it.

Wrong, thats a 4th ed rule. Only rule in 5th about bases is to tell your opponent if your are not using the standard base. Nothing more.

I think it's a great model, but I'd use it as a killer Autarch.

Clean cut case here, it's totally 100% legitimate. It's a Citadel Eldar Avatar, the same model.

Ironically, if you rebased it (on a 40mm base) to make it fit better with the current Avatar model it would become player consent.

Good taste would require you to put it on an impressive scenic base of course.

Your ARE required to use a citadel model with the base it comes with.







what i see here is not only smart, but a fething great model aswell.
it is on its origional base, its an avatar allright, nothing wrong with it.

on that note and pushing it even lower, would you mind if i used epic ork boyz as my boyz?
full cover from blades of grass is great!

JD21290 wrote:Your ARE required to use a citadel model with the base it comes with.

No, no you are not. You just to let your opponent know if you aren't. Your stuck in 4th ed man.

Just because something's legal doesn't mean you aren't being a douche if you chose to take advantage of it to win a game.

Playing with an old Avatar that you have had in your collection and have played with for 20 years =/= douchebaggery.

Playing with an old-style Avatar which you bought off ebay last week, just to take extra advantage of cover rules = douchebaggery.

Playing with an old Avatar that has been in your collection but unpainted and unplayed with for 20 years.... that's a harder call.

If you are doing it because you specifically want to take advantage of the cover rule - you are a douche.

If you are doing it because you prefer the older model, can't afford the new one, or some other non-rules-related reason - you are not a douche.

I play people with old models a lot. But that's because they have been playing the game for a long time and don't have time, money, nor inclination to replace an old model for a new one. I couldn't give a fig. It may give them an advantage or a disadvantage. I'm not even going to waste my time working it out.

If, on the other hand, I played someone who I found out had specifically picked older "legal" models because of the in-game advantage they'd confer, I'd consider them to be behaving in a less-than-sporting manner and probably just ridicule them in a jocular fashion. Anyone *that* bothered about winning a game involving toy soldiers and dice deserves my sympathy, not my hatred.

In a tournament setting, its down to the TO and their view of older models. What happens at tournaments is no concern of mine.

No, no you are not. You just to let your opponent know if you aren't. Your stuck in 4th ed man.

must you try and argue with everything i say?
you must use models with the origional base provided.
a certain person used smaller bases on his crushers, this was considered to be cheating.




on the same note, any idea how much these avatar models are and how hard to find they are?

Depends on how you use it in my opinion. March it at the head of your army like it really should be, being the incarnation of the Eldar god of war and all, then fine, it won't matter if it's the new one or the old one. But being a douche and using the model just for the LOS advantage, hiding it behind low hills and rocks that the correctly sized model wouldn't be able to hide behind so you can jump out of the bushes and assrape someone?

If you're using it because you paid for the old model and have issues with being "forced" to buy the new up to date one, fine. I understand that kinda sucks ass having spent all that money on old models and then be told you can't use them anymore in the newer version of the game, especially RT-era players since they'd be expected to buy entire new armies to replace the outdated models. Or if you're going with a theme and went looking for all old models for your army, fine...though I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to do that, considering most old models are uglier than sin. But you make a lot of threads like this and in every one it's pretty much the same thing..."Oh gee, it just so turns out that using this old, ugly model will give me some kind of...advantage! Wow that's awesome, and completely legal according to my interpretation of the rules, what do you guys think? Not that I really give a gak what you guys think since I'm going to do it anyway and you can all get bent, but there's nothing wrong with it right?"

I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I honestly don't understand the point. You've already clearly made up your mind, you're going to use the old model and take advantage of the LOS rules with it and you don't care what anyone else thinks because technically it's legal and there's no written rule saying every model you use HAS to be the most up to date version. So why even bother asking then, it's almost like you're trying to provoke people into calling you out on this stuff just so you can argue with them and prove how right you are.

So I say go ahead and use stunty, technically he is an avatar and all. But like someone said earlier, why not go even farther and use epic models? A titan is a titan right, why waste the money on a FW reaver when you can plonk down an Epic titan on a really big base, you can really screw with the LOS rules then. Anyone that refuses to play with you for that is just a dick anyway.

This is the third thread by the OP on essentially the same subject. I wonder if he's planning to go through the entire RT range in this fashion.

Ooh ooh I have one. He's so small he makes an excellent EPIC scale avatar.

Put him on a proper base. Everyone agree his real height for LOS purposes is 2in (or whatever the nromal height is) tall. Life is fine.

Gwar! wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:In the end, I won't care, but mounting it on a properly sized base (one that, when the RT Avatar is placed on it) is pretty much equal to the size of the new Avatar is really the easiest solution.

-Vlad

Actualy the easiest solution is to mount it on the base it came with. Then show the whining bastard why they make the rules in hardback form.

Also yay for trenchie, showing us it's ok to be an asshat since 1877

Thats BS. I remember 1877. Trenchie's no 1877. 1921 maybe, but no way 1877.

THERE'S ONLY ONE CROTCHETY OLD MAN ON DAKKA!!!!

George Spiggott wrote:This is the third thread by the OP on essentially the same subject. I wonder if he's planning to go through the entire RT range in this fashion.

4th by my count. The first one was fun, the second interesting, this one is just boring. Same opinions, same discussion, same sad responses. Personally I don't understand why there's a need for more than one of these threads. I don't think it's "trolling" per se, ie posting something inflamatory, or likely to cause a flamewar, but it's beginning to become a rut. I think I'm just going to ignore the next one, which is a bit of a shame, I like these little trips down memory lane. Trenchie and I got started about the same time, and have similar outlooks on WYSIWYG.

List of Topics started by Trenchie about WYSIWYG issues:
This current one:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/235141.page

The "Whatdoyoumeanyouplayitonordinarypaper!!11??" mindset...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/234312.page

"Incorrectly" based models...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231004.page

Space Ork Boar riders "counts as"...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/230376.page

Anal fools and small models...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229622.page

He's also got a couple of other threads that seem to devolve into WYSIWYG discussions. And these are all fairly recent threads, two of which are still at the top of the Dakka Discussions list.

I really do understand where he's coming from, but honestly it's beating a dead horse that this point.

BigToof wrote:List of Topics started by Trenchie about WYSIWYG issues:
This current one:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/235141.page

The "Whatdoyoumeanyouplayitonordinarypaper!!11??" mindset...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/234312.page

"Incorrectly" based models...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231004.page

Space Ork Boar riders "counts as"...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/230376.page

Anal fools and small models...:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229622.page

He's also got a couple of other threads that seem to devolve into WYSIWYG discussions. And these are all fairly recent threads, two of which are still at the top of the Dakka Discussions list.

I really do understand where he's coming from, but honestly it's beating a dead horse that this point.

Then don't read them. Its not a difficult solution.

Bigtoof, you could allways do what frazz is doing and ignore them (not threaten them with a shotgun)

allthough, this thread is pretty good, i never even knew such a model existed, and i now want one

As has been stated, the central question here is: "Can I use a Citadel Miniatures Eldar Avatar Model designed for 40k as my Eldar Avater in a game of 40k?"

The answer, of course, is yes.

As the proud owner of over two dozen old Rhino Hulled space marine vehicles, I see no reason to upgrade when new models come out.

As for advantages in game play, maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see very many. Maybe you can black LOS completely to it, but the avatar doesn't care about cover (it has a 4++), and it's still not exactly a tiny model that's easy to hide.

As for the meta discussion regarding the abundance of threads on this general topic, I guess I don't care, if only because general consensus I think was different in nearly all of them. There are key differences between old models, counts as issues, WYSIWYG conversion issues, etc.

Frazzled wrote:Ooh ooh I have one. He's so small he makes an excellent EPIC scale avatar.

Put him on a proper base. Everyone agree his real height for LOS purposes is 2in (or whatever the nromal height is) tall. Life is fine.

I agree with this. You can use the old model, sure. It is a legal model. But, if you get to use the new rules for it, I get to shoot at you as though you were the 54mm tall version. You cant say in one breath "I'm a monstrous creature!” and “I am hiding behind a small trash can.” If you play ‘new model rules’ I can play ‘new model rules’ too. Cover is not granted unless it would have covered the biggy.

frazz, why did you not inform me that you have one earlier? :(
any idea what they are going for and where i can find one?

The old rhinos are fugly though

they had some great parts on them gwar
i still like them, but the new rhino kit is still better, just better designed

JD21290 wrote:they had some great parts on them gwar
i still like them, but the new rhino kit is still better, just better designed

true, Ive actually got an old metal vindicator somewhere, and I love it to bits. Nice and Chunky.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I agree with this. You can use the old model, sure. It is a legal model. But, if you get to use the new rules for it, I get to shoot at you as though you were the 54mm tall version. You cant say in one breath "I'm a monstrous creature!” and “I am hiding behind a small trash can.” If you play ‘new model rules’ I can play ‘new model rules’ too. Cover is not granted unless it would have covered the biggy.

I'm curious to where that rule is in the BRB, I haven't seen it.

While I agree that buying an older model specifically to gain an advantage is an asshat move there is absolutely no rule against it.
Like I said earlier in the post I have several old Ork Trukks that I use simply because I don't have the inclination to spend $100+ to replace them with the new models.
I couldn't move one of my trukks in front of a mob of boys and say "Well, you can't really see those boys to shoot at them because if I had the new model it would be tall enough to block your line of sight.

True line of sight is exactly what it says it is: True Line of Sight.

Older models are still legal models, otherwise GW would be punishing their most loyal customers: those who have been in the hobby for a long time.
And the idea of saying: "Well, really it should be X millimeters taller, so it wouldn't get cover" would just add an unnecessary level of complexity to very straightforward rules.

Right on the money Mr Toast.

If a model is a old citadel miniature, then there is no problem in using it as is.

for once im with Gwar about something


with the avatar you could allways make a 2nd base for it that stands around 2 inches tall

DebonaireToast wrote:

I'm curious to where that rule is in the BRB, I haven't seen it.

While I agree that buying an older model specifically to gain an advantage is an asshat move there is absolutely no rule against it.
Like I said earlier in the post I have several old Ork Trukks that I use simply because I don't have the inclination to spend $100+ to replace them with the new models.
I couldn't move one of my trukks in front of a mob of boys and say "Well, you can't really see those boys to shoot at them because if I had the new model it would be tall enough to block your line of sight.

True line of sight is exactly what it says it is: True Line of Sight.

Older models are still legal models, otherwise GW would be punishing their most loyal customers: those who have been in the hobby for a long time.
And the idea of saying: "Well, really it should be X millimeters taller, so it wouldn't get cover" would just add an unnecessary level of complexity to very straightforward rules.

It's in the section on "Asshatery".

Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:It's in the section on "Asshatery".

Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!

gee, isnt someone bitter.

There is nothing wrong with using the Old Model.
Saying otherwise makes YOU the asshat.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!

If GW had at one point and time sold a blister full of boltguns and bases labeled "Space Marines" I would see no problem with that. However, as far as I know they never did that. I suppose you could still do it as "Counts As" if you really wanted to, good luck with that.

No, the avatar is not the same one as the current codex, but again if GW announced that every time they re-sculpted a model the old versions could no longer be used..well...it probably wouldn't go over too well. (Then again neither would saying: "That army doesn't exist anymore" ala LATD, so who knows, they might still do it sometime in the future.)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

It's in the section on "Asshatery".

Honestly, that model is not the Avatar of the current codex. Sure it has the same name, but it is not the same model. The rhinos are the same model. The ork trucks are the same model. They are slightly different, but they are the same category of model (a vehicle). This is a case of using a infantry model for a monstrous creature. If the only reason he is allowed to use it is a lack of clear rules in the brb, then I can use just bolt guns on bases to represent my marines. GW model? check. Based? check. Wow! I get cover saves from static grass!!!! Go BRB!!!!

first off, there is no such section in the rule book. The most important rule is to play for fun, which I would argue using old models often is.

The rhinos are significantly different in size, as are the trukks, which is part of the problem. Look at some of the old demon prince models: they're the size of an Ork Nob.

You do realize that infantry get cover saves regardless of the size of the cover, right? So the only reason to make your infantry tiny is to hide them utterly. In addition, I'd argue that bolters on bases aren't WYSIWYG, because I don't know if they are marines, chaos marines, sisters of battle, or a variant chapter.

Look, the model got significantly larger, but the old avatar of Khaine is pretty clearly an avatar: well armored, big flamey decorations, a giant weapon, etc.

I fail to see how, even if played by an utter WAAC jerk, using that model would really give that big of an advantage.

The really fun part of this is that you can actually "build" the avatar almost completely out of rules that infantry models all already have. Kharn has the high S and the Monstrous Creature bonus to vehicles, Cassius is T6, Every marine captain has a 3+/4++, plenty of models have melta guns, etc. I guess I just don't feel horribly offended by the idea of an infantry sized avatar.

Gwar! wrote:There is nothing wrong with using the Old Model.
Saying otherwise makes YOU the asshat.

Ok. I have no problem being an asshat so long as it is because I say that a monstrous creature does not get cover saves from something only 10mm tall.

Have an old Carnifex? No problem. That model was a monstrous creature and still is.
Have an old marine? No problem, that model was infantry and still is.
Have an old wartrukk? No problem, that model was a vehicle and still is.

Have an old avatr? Problem. That model is infantry. The rules call for a monstrous creature. This does not work. If you really want to play it, fine. Take of 2 points of S and T and lose the Monstrous Creature rules. But who would do that? You take an Avatar to get those very rules.

I am Asshat. You no play that! Done.