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'd be fine with it Puma. I think some players might have a prob with the base size, but the dual base would solve this, or just measure a bit less. Both of those are great solutions.

I say use it.

It's an Avatar. I seriously doubt a TO would not allow you to use the FW one.

However, it is silly that GW has made, what, three different sized Avatar models over the years?

I get really irritated by some of the pretty anal rules about models that are usable and those that aren't. I think that Forge World models would definitely be usable; I've seen pre-heresy armies used at official tournaments, which are all Forge World models.

Well, the comments in the thread have made me feel better about moving forward. However, there is a rub:

I don't plan on actually using the FW avatar, but another FW model as a count-as avatar. It will be about the same size, but on a 60mm base. The question was more about the base size than the actual model (although I agree with nos in that what advantages you gain from the bubble, you lose from cover/hiding).

puma713 wrote:Well, the comments in the thread have made me feel better about moving forward. However, there is a rub:

I don't plan on actually using the FW avatar, but another FW model as a count-as avatar. It will be about the same size, but on a 60mm base. The question was more about the base size than the actual model (although I agree with nos in that what advantages you gain from the bubble, you lose from cover/hiding).

See, here's where I can see some problems: you're using a small figure on a larger base, which means you are gaining the advantage of the larger bubble without the penalty of the larger target.

I'd still let ya do it without thinking twice just so long as you're actually a fun opponent to play against (read: not a smug neckbeard with a superiority complex), but I 'd imagine a lot of purists would have a problem with using that model choice.

azazel the cat wrote:

puma713 wrote:Well, the comments in the thread have made me feel better about moving forward. However, there is a rub:

I don't plan on actually using the FW avatar, but another FW model as a count-as avatar. It will be about the same size, but on a 60mm base. The question was more about the base size than the actual model (although I agree with nos in that what advantages you gain from the bubble, you lose from cover/hiding).

See, here's where I can see some problems: you're using a small figure on a larger base, which means you are gaining the advantage of the larger bubble without the penalty of the larger target.

I'd still let ya do it without thinking twice just so long as you're actually a fun opponent to play against (read: not a smug neckbeard with a superiority complex), but I 'd imagine a lot of purists would have a problem with using that model choice.

Well, to clear up any confusion, I plan on using this as my avatar. Reason being is my eldar army is snow-wood-elf themed and he would be perfect 'avatar'. I plan on putting him on a 60mm base:

puma713 wrote:Well, to clear up any confusion, I plan on using this as my avatar. Reason being is my eldar army is snow-wood-elf themed and he would be perfect 'avatar'. I plan on putting him on a 60mm base:

Spoiler:

Pics needed ASAP

use it if they have a problem don't play

captain collius wrote:use it if they have a problem don't play

A little tough when you're locked into a tournament.

However, I have received word from two different TOs that I game with that the 60mm base would be acceptable, so I think I'll move forward with this.

Thanks all!

bring the normal size avatar with. anyone has a problem, switch the model.

DarthSpader wrote:bring the normal size avatar with. anyone has a problem, switch the model.

Don't give in to their demands. Stand by your rule of cool decision. The TOs have okay'd it, so if your opponent is unhappy with your model, then your opponent can always just forfeit and go home.

I have forgeworld all through my Tau and only once did it ever become an issue. The guy argued that my broadsides were out of formation because their base was actually smaller than the fw ones. In the end the TO sided with me but I have since rebased all my FW suits on 40mm.

I've heard this same issue discussed in with regards to the FW Manticore model, which has a 360 degree rotatable turret, where the GW one doesn't rotate at all. Still, FW models are totally acceptable, so it must be allowed, and it must be allowed with the articulation the model was given, or in this case, the base that comes with the model.

Don't think any other interpretation has that much ground to stand on here.

You guys are all forgetting that Forge world models that represent actual codex models are perfectly legal, there is no question that the forgeworld Avatar is a legal model on the table.

bagtagger wrote:You guys are all forgetting that Forge world models that represent actual codex models are perfectly legal, there is no question that the forgeworld Avatar is a legal model on the table.

I certainly agree with this.

However, the OP is not using a FW Avatar. He's proxying something else and needs to use the FW's larger base because it's a large model.

I personally don't have a problem with this, and neither does the TO that he's talked to, apparently. Which is cool.

kronk wrote:

bagtagger wrote:You guys are all forgetting that Forge world models that represent actual codex models are perfectly legal, there is no question that the forgeworld Avatar is a legal model on the table.

I certainly agree with this.

However, the OP is not using a FW Avatar. He's proxying something else and needs to use the FW's larger base because it's a large model.

I personally don't have a problem with this, and neither does the TO that he's talked to, apparently. Which is cool.

oh I see, well I personally would allow it but it is up to individual TOs if other models can be used.

While I understand the arguements of "if you have a problem then I won't play you" I think there is a precident in the bases of TWC and models such as Canis wolfborn.
His rules state he must be used with the base provided as sticking him on a bigger base can break CC. Forgeworld space marines are the same size and their weapons are clearly bolters etc, they have no modelled for advantage aspects a larger base can be an advantage when it comes to range of effect powers and rules.

What do you do about a double base when it comes to CC, it sounds like a giant pain in the hole to deal with moving models into B2b contact. Personally I leave my models that are made just for the sake of cool at home for tournaments, the TO has the right to say if a model is too divergent from intended to be legal.

Pg 3 of the rules state that "as mounting models on different sized bases might affect they interact with the rules, make sure to ask that your opponent doesn't mind.".
I think that since it is counts as(more or less) then it should be on the same size base but the TO would have final say.

puma713 wrote:
A little tough when you're locked into a tournament.

However, I have received word from two different TOs that I game with that the 60mm base would be acceptable, so I think I'll move forward with this.

The only person you have to appease at a tournament is the TO. Your opponents at tournaments do not get a say.

liturgies of blood wrote:While I understand the arguements of "if you have a problem then I won't play you" I think there is a precident in the bases of TWC and models such as Canis wolfborn.

However, that precedent is based on the fact that Canis has a rule that is seriously affected by the size of his base, as he gets more powerful as the number of models he is in B2B increases. To my knowledge there is no such rule for Khaine.

The avatar has a fearless bubble based on a distance from his base.

I'd totally allow it (awesome model for a more feral eldar army btw) but i can understand what someone else wouldn't want that bubble to grow. It could have the game-deciding morale check negated due to Fearless, because the unit it juuust inside that bubble.

azazel the cat wrote: However, that precedent is based on the fact that Canis has a rule that is seriously affected by the size of his base, as he gets more powerful as the number of models he is in B2B increases. To my knowledge there is no such rule for Khaine.

Well there is a rule in the rule book that I quoted about bases, that it is only with the opponent or TO's agreement. Canis is GW just stating no breaking the game. If anyone wanted to use gabriel seth with a giant base, putting sanguinary guard on termintor bases when not in TDA etc I would say that it is a modelling for advantage situation even if not intentional. I don't think there is a massive difference a base giving a greater cc boost or giving a bigger bubble of buff.

Cool modelling is great fun but for wargaming you need to follow the rules.

liturgies of blood wrote:

azazel the cat wrote: However, that precedent is based on the fact that Canis has a rule that is seriously affected by the size of his base, as he gets more powerful as the number of models he is in B2B increases. To my knowledge there is no such rule for Khaine.

I don't think there is a massive difference a base giving a greater cc boost or giving a bigger bubble of buff.

Cool modelling is great fun but for wargaming you need to follow the rules.

While I do agree to some extent, I believe and advantages the larger-based Khaine receives from the slightly larger bubble is also mitigated by the model being very, very difficult to hide in cover, and therefore easier to shoot. While this will certainly affect any gameplans an opponent may have thought of prior to arriving at the table, it's not as if this difference can come as a surprise mid-game.

Now, I'm all for following the rules. However, I just don't see this issue causing enough of an effect on the game to make a difference to any reasonable person. I just personally don't think that I neckbeard hard enough for this issue to matter to me, were I to encounter it on a table.

If anyone gives you grief you could always switch him out for the normal one when they go to shoot at him. Especially if their line of sight would be broken by him shrinking

The 'disadvantage' of having him hiding in cover is a bit spurious anyway, as he has a 4+ invulnerable save

3+ cover is fairly rare on most battlefields (unless you fortify your own).

Hiding him entirely behind cover and unshootable would be harder, true, but the extra height also allows him to look over more cover to throw his spear at someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd carry a regular one and the stand-in.

When you place your stand-in on the table, be willing to exchange it if they have an issue (unless preapproved by a tournament, in which case refer to the TO).

If they don't complain when you pull it out, they can't really complain later when you use it to beat them down

azazel the cat wrote:
While I do agree to some extent, I believe and advantages the larger-based Khaine receives from the slightly larger bubble is also mitigated by the model being very, very difficult to hide in cover, and therefore easier to shoot. While this will certainly affect any gameplans an opponent may have thought of prior to arriving at the table, it's not as if this difference can come as a surprise mid-game.

Now, I'm all for following the rules. However, I just don't see this issue causing enough of an effect on the game to make a difference to any reasonable person. I just personally don't think that I neckbeard hard enough for this issue to matter to me, were I to encounter it on a table.

I think you have to as a TO take it on a case by case basis. I would want to see the model in question, especially since it's not the FW avatar. I'd agree with you on the fw avatar to an extent cos it is easy as hell to draw line of sight to.
With some of the tourney power gamers(read asshats) that I have seen they try to slip something in to give them advantage, certain characters on 40mm bases so they get a little extra distance when they unload from a transport etc. They call foul on every little thing and have their own reading of rules and argue over all the calls. These guys I have no love for and would call rules as written on them and ask for models to be reasonably close to what they are filling in for.

azazel the cat wrote:I would allow it. The codex assumes that you are using a GW model. Since FW = GW, it should be legal.

Just play it and if people don't like it, tell them to call GW.

They own FW. If they want people to be happy, they need to combine their model lines.

Isn't there a rule in the BRB about modeling models on larger bases? Last i new you could model a model on a bigger base by one size if you are doing it for looks. And not just an in game advantage. Using the forge world model is for looks not to try and abuse the rules. I have daemon princes on 60mm and lords on 40mm. Actually i put all Hqs on no base smaller than 40mm, Just because i want to put them on a better looking base.This could have been a gaming club faq. But i am pretty sure i have read this some where. For the life of me i can't remember where.

liturgies of blood wrote:Pg 3 of the rules state that "as mounting models on different sized bases might affect how they interact with the rules, make sure to ask that your opponent doesn't mind.".

@ PapaPiggy: That's the rule.

@ Emerette: Forgeworld are owned by citadel I believe so FW=/=GW and since it is not a stright FW for GW avatar swap there is more to it then that. A TO gets the final say as to legality of models and all counts as stuff, if you don't like their call then don't play. They have to draw the balance between looking cool and modelling for advantage.
They don't need to merge their model lines as most of the forge world stuff is either aimed at apocalypse level games using the FW rules or a more detailed model that can be fitted into a normal GW army without any problem such as heresy era space marines or FW dreadnaughts.

If you huddle troops behind it, in a deliberate abuse of the larger base, yeah... I'll chew on the TO afterward and mark you way down on sportsmanship. Otherwise, it wouldn't even bother me a bit (even getting the extra bubble).

liturgies of blood wrote:

@ Emerette: Forgeworld are owned by citadel I believe so FW=/=GW

No. Forge World is owned by Games Workshop.