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.

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

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

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

It does.

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-cgmckenzie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-cgmckenzie

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

Now you are reaaaaally mixed up.

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

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

Umm. That doesn't even make sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I play orks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one called you a cheater, R.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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