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.

Is it still acceptable use 3ed edition vehicles? How about in tournament/GT environments? The rhino chassis are significantly smaller then the current edition rhino's. Though I can understand someone getting upset if you ran half and half would it be acceptable to run all 3ed vehicles in my army?

Example: My CSM army where fluff wise it would make sense to have the older editions.

You may use any official GW models, regardless of age. It is very rare to see any TO disallow a model that was official. You will be fine.

perfectly acceptable, dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

some people just like to cry, let them.

You're in the clear

I have never once seen anybody complain about the old Rhinos/Razorbacks/Landraiders excepting complaints about aesthetics, cause they are ugly as sin.

 Lordhat wrote:
I have never once seen anybody complain about the old Rhinos/Razorbacks/Landraiders excepting complaints about aesthetics, cause they are ugly as sin.

Saw it once. Mind you it was more of a lack of terrain issue.

Dev squad couldn't see small rhino hidden behind wrecked regular rhino. However if we swap it with a regular one it would have had LOS.

Again though lack of terrain, person with the Dev squad cries about anything.

 Lordhat wrote:
I have never once seen anybody complain about the old Rhinos/Razorbacks/Landraiders excepting complaints about aesthetics, cause they are ugly as sin.

Had my opponent make a minor rumble last week about me using a second edition Hive Tyrant. The thing is barely larger then a tyranid warrior, and with the Blood Thirster wings I gave him, he still has a really small profile. He was upset that I was hiding behind a hedge that a "normal" sized tyrant wouldn't have had any chance to hide behind.

Legit GW model? If yes, it's legal.



Not mine, but for comparison.

 Tomb King wrote:
Is it still acceptable use 3ed edition vehicles? How about in tournament/GT environments? The rhino chassis are significantly smaller then the current edition rhino's. Though I can understand someone getting upset if you ran half and half would it be acceptable to run all 3ed vehicles in my army?

Of course. The newest vehicle in my CSM army is from 2nd ed, and thats the dread, the rest of them are from RT. It is also still legal to use the cardboard dread from the 2nd ed box set, it is after all an official GW model




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnage43 wrote:
[
Legit GW model? If yes, it's legal.
.

Thats only for GW run/sponsered tournaments or stores. Otherwise use who evers models you like.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I have never once seen anybody complain about the old Rhinos/Razorbacks/Landraiders excepting complaints about aesthetics, cause they are ugly as sin.

Saw it once. Mind you it was more of a lack of terrain issue.

Dev squad couldn't see small rhino hidden behind wrecked regular rhino. However if we swap it with a regular one it would have had LOS.

Again though lack of terrain, person with the Dev squad cries about anything.

This is my biggest concern. Should I still play it TLOS or should I assume my rhino is the current edition size for LOS of issues? Could one make an argument for modeling for advantage or in this situation editioning for advantage.

Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I have never once seen anybody complain about the old Rhinos/Razorbacks/Landraiders excepting complaints about aesthetics, cause they are ugly as sin.

Saw it once. Mind you it was more of a lack of terrain issue.

Dev squad couldn't see small rhino hidden behind wrecked regular rhino. However if we swap it with a regular one it would have had LOS.

Again though lack of terrain, person with the Dev squad cries about anything.

This is my biggest concern. Should I still play it TLOS or should I assume my rhino is the current edition size for LOS of issues? Could one make an argument for modeling for advantage or in this situation editioning for advantage.

It's no different than if someone actually bought only those Tau figures that are laying down to shoot, so that they could shoot from under a skimmer. There is no such thing as cherrypicking your models for advantage, so long as they are all official GW models. Hell, you should use those super-old Ork Kans pictures on the cardboard cutouts, turn them sideways and hided them behind a lamp post and it would be legal (a million Internets to anyone who does this during a tourney and posts pics).

They're official models, sure. As for whether they're "allowed", that can only be answered by your TO if you're going to a tournament, or your opponent if not. There is absolutely no way you can claim that your models are legal to the extent that your opponent cannot refuse to play against you.

I would think that the carboard dreadnoughts are actually counters, not models.

 Tomb King wrote:
This is my biggest concern. Should I still play it TLOS or should I assume my rhino is the current edition size for LOS of issues? Could one make an argument for modeling for advantage or in this situation editioning for advantage.

Some tournaments will insist on playing it as if it were the current model. For casual play, IMO that's just too much fething about. Use the model you have on the table. The actual issues caused by the model being a different size are minimal, and in most cases there are positives and negatives with it that more or less balance out anyway.

The only time that a smaller model is reasonably exclusively an advantage is when that model is something with no ranged capability, so being smaller makes it easier to hide behind terrain while the reduced LOS from the model isn't a detriment because it can't shoot anyway... But it's not really that big a deal. An opponent complaining that your slightly smaller hive tyrant can't be shot as easily would have the exact same problem if you were using the current tyrant and slightly larger terrain...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hell, you should use those super-old Ork Kans pictures on the cardboard cutouts, turn them sideways and hided them behind a lamp post and it would be legal (a million Internets to anyone who does this during a tourney and posts pics).

They were dreadnoughts, not kans... kans didn't exist in 2nd edition. And they aren't models. They were cardboard cutouts for use to represent a dreadnought in a couple of the scenarios in the second edition starter set.

My bad. For some reason I remembered them as Orks.

 azazel the cat wrote:
My bad. For some reason I remembered them as Orks.

They were Orks... just dreads, not kans.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hell, you should use those super-old Ork Kans pictures on the cardboard cutouts, turn them sideways and hided them behind a lamp post and it would be legal (a million Internets to anyone who does this during a tourney and posts pics).

If you want to go down that road, then I'll be using the counters from the original Rogue Trader hardback if I ever play you, and they could get cover behind a blade of grass...

FYI: Indy events can make whatever rules they want so 'GW=Legal' only works for GW events.

I have seen ork players have trouble using gorka trukks in 5th and 6th edition along with custom 3rd edition BWs. It is a valid complaint when old models are no longer suitable for the modern game.

If you are attempting to gain an advantage, you may find yourself standing up for 'gamers rights' just to lose your argument.

Most tourneys I have participated request people play the model as if it was the new model for all purposes. No amount of 'It is my right to gain an advantage from old GW official models' will do you much good in an indy tourney.

And in a casual game, if you are going to be trying to force legacy models on someone for an advantage and adamant about your 'rights' well then the game ends as people don't have to play against you.

I carry my RT paper dread in my bag so I can deploy him FLAT on the table to gain an advantage when people complain. It is an official GW model, and nothing says it has to stand. So I can slide across the table hiding behind everything then Powerklaw to the face! How fun is that?

nkelsch wrote:
It is an official GW model,

And again, no, it isn't. It is a cardboard cut out intended to represent a dreadnought in certain specific scenarios for an edition of the game that is long gone.

If you are playing one of those scenarios, feel free to use that cut out.

insaniak wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
My bad. For some reason I remembered them as Orks.

They were Orks... just dreads, not kans.

Excellent! That means I'm less crazy than I started to suspect!

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
It is an official GW model,

And again, no, it isn't. It is a cardboard cut out intended to represent a dreadnought in certain specific scenarios for an edition of the game that is long gone.

If you are playing one of those scenarios, feel free to use that cut out.

Then I want the reciept or the box your Gorka trukk came in as if it was bought as part of Gorkamorka, it is invalid for 40k play then. If someone is going to break LOS by using drastically undersized models to gain advantages based upon 'technicalities' then let's get technical.

Or you can realise True LOS is part of the game and it is unfair for one person's trukks to be able to be totally hidden behind a 1" hill and another barley get a cover save but cost the same points. It is unreasonable to have such an imbalance between two players at the same event... which is why I have seen more than once Gorkatrukks invalidated or players told to treat them as the size of the modern trukk for LOS purposes.

nkelsch wrote:

I carry my RT paper dread in my bag so I can deploy him FLAT on the table to gain an advantage when people complain. It is an official GW model, and nothing says it has to stand. So I can slide across the table hiding behind everything then Powerklaw to the face! How fun is that?

Never played against flyers or Barrage weapons?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:


Then I want the reciept or the box your Gorka trukk came in as if it was bought as part of Gorkamorka, it is invalid for 40k play then. If someone is going to break LOS by using drastically undersized models to gain advantages based upon 'technicalities' then let's get technical.

Or you can realise True LOS is part of the game and it is unfair for one person's trukks to be able to be totally hidden behind a 1" hill and another barley get a cover save but cost the same points. It is unreasonable to have such an imbalance between two players at the same event... which is why I have seen more than once Gorkatrukks invalidated or players told to treat them as the size of the modern trukk for LOS purposes.

not sure if Gorkamorka was/is a citadel model, isn't that all the rules care about?

Lets not even discuss fairness, look at all the codex imbalances. Lack of AA in 40k (excluding FW)

Been to several GTs in the past couple years. Havnt seen many ork players, however I have seen my fair share of baby Rhinos. No one cared.

nkelsch wrote:
Then I want the reciept or the box your Gorka trukk came in as if it was bought as part of Gorkamorka, it is invalid for 40k play then.

Yeah, good luck with that.

If someone is going to break LOS by using drastically undersized models to gain advantages based upon 'technicalities' then let's get technical.

Get as technical as you want. Enjoy playing by yourself.

Or you can realise True LOS is part of the game and it is unfair for one person's trukks to be able to be totally hidden behind a 1" hill and another barley get a cover save but cost the same points.

You can apply the same argument to, say, Imperial Guard. One guy can be seen behind a specific barrier while his kneeling companion who costs the same points can not.

What most people (from my experience) realise is that the actual difference it makes to the game is minimal, and in a game where the rules are so far from centrally balanced in the first place there are much, much bigger things to stress over.

nkelsch wrote:
Then I want the reciept or the box your Gorka trukk came in as if it was bought as part of Gorkamorka, it is invalid for 40k play then.

To the same extent you could say the same for AoBR/DV models I suppose. They weren't made for 40k it's a game in and of itself.

We can see if he'll whine about people using Space Hulk terminators too, even if they've been properly based.

The only time I or anyone else I know has ever complained about older models was one player I knew who couldn't not play WAAC style even if he tried, who specifically purchased 3rd edition whirlwinds to use as Exorcists, and would park two of them behind a modern rhino turned sideways in a back corner of the board, letting them shoot freely because the missile turret could see over the rhino, but shielding them from fire from almost every forward angle, because the bigger moden rhino completely hid their hulls. It was massively irritating and we didn't hold back on the criticism, but completely legal, if abusive.

I've never heard anyone criticize another player for using older models that they've been using ever since those models were on shelves.

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Then I want the reciept or the box your Gorka trukk came in as if it was bought as part of Gorkamorka, it is invalid for 40k play then.

Yeah, good luck with that.

For someone who's profile claims he has 2500 posts on this board, nkelsch sure doesn't know much about anything.

If someone is going to break LOS by using drastically undersized models to gain advantages based upon 'technicalities' then let's get technical.

Get as technical as you want. Enjoy playing with yourself.

Minor adjustment to your quote, but that would probably solve a whole lot of his problems!

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:To the same extent you could say the same for AoBR/DV models I suppose. They weren't made for 40k it's a game in and of itself.

Where does this idea keep coming from...?

AoBR and DV are not separate games. They are starter sets for Warhammer 40000, and include the Warhammer 40000 rulebook.

Bookwrack wrote:I've never heard anyone criticize another player for using older models that they've been using ever since those models were on shelves.

To be fair, the ork trukk got a certain amount of criticism for its size even before the new trukk arrived.

But the vast majority of the complaints I have seen about it have been on the internet. I haven't seen anyone ever refuse a game over it, and while I use mine as a buggy (and have done since I bought it) I would have no problem with an opponent using them.

Until GW adds something into their LOS rules that takes model posing into account, TLOS will never be a precise enough system to be worth arguing over whether or not a given model should be half an inch taller.

Why would TLOS rules need to be changed to compensate for a model's size? If its an official model, or scratchbuilt to the proper dimensions, then who cares? Get down, look at the model, and see if it is visible.

Very very simple.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Why would TLOS rules need to be changed to compensate for a model's size?

The point is that in one respect nkelsh is absolutely correct: two models that are identical rules-wise should have an identical effect on LOS. Otherwise, at least one of those models is not correctly representing those rules.

That's looking at it purely on paper, as a game. Fairness, logic and balance require that two things that are identical should be effectively identical.


But that's just not the way 40K works. It never has. Instead, we have a system that allows for a model's LOS profile to change depending on how you glue the model together. It's certainly more cinematic, but it's not as neat and tidy for the rules.

And within those confines, it's simply not worth worrying over whether this trukk is a little smaller than that one, or this tyrant is taller than that. The system doesn't care, and so neither should we.

The thing is, 40K is not supposed to be a serious game. It is a for fun game. The rules are for playing with toy soldiers, not precise military realism.

A lot of the attraction is the chance to use all kinds of weird monsters and vehicles, often converted. You can't do that without introducing many variations that are going to affect TLoS rules.

The TLoS rules are intended to support the "toy soldiers" aspect of the game.

insaniak wrote:And within those confines, it's simply not worth worrying over whether this trukk is a little smaller than that one, or this tyrant is taller than that. The system doesn't care, and so neither should we.

This I most definitely agree with.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The thing is, 40K is not supposed to be a serious game. It is a for fun game. The rules are for playing with toy soldiers, not precise military realism..

QFT,

It's only when you try to take the game beyond this, that these issues arise.