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.

It's certainly tourney legal to use the old Avatar model.

Some people will ding you on soft scores just right off the bat because it's so small.

As others have said, depending how you treat the model, I might or might not ding you. During deployment, do you call out, "Hey, here's my avatar. I know it's the older one and pretty small in comparison. But, I've been using it for 20 years and just like it." Do you hide it behind a Wraithguard to block LOS, or put it out in front of the whole army? etc.

With TLOS, it helps and hurts the smaller model. I think it helps it more than hurts it - I think it helps it a lot.

Gwar! wrote:The old rhinos are fugly though

Son, in regards to your disparagement of the old rhinos




JD you can probably ebay them.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: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.

So...I don't have an Eldar codex, but I played against an Eldar army with an avatar last week and it seems like the Avatar gets a 4+ invulnerable save anyways....

So....what's the issue?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[
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.

Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?

As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?

DebonaireToast wrote:So...I don't have an Eldar codex, but I played against an Eldar army with an avatar last week and it seems like the Avatar gets a 4+ invulnerable save anyways....

So....what's the issue?

True line of sight is the issue.
An infantry unit can completely block line of sight to the 'monstrous creature' behind them. This allows a few rounds of moving up without taking any shooting. If the 'real' model was played, there would have been 2 wounds done to it before it got in combat. The small model allows you to march right up to battle without any risk. That is a big problem.

None, except maybe LOS to it. Hence my view-anyone shooting at if have issue with saize just count as the normal height.

To general whatwever-the Avatar has never been infantry. It just wasn't as big as it is now.

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!!!!

Pure exaggeration literally to the point of hyperbole that doesnt even have the redeeming quality of being humorous.

Saying a model is not a model from a current codex brings this game down a perilous path it was never intended to go.
YOU say it is an infantry model. While it may be the same height as most commonly seen infantry, it is infact, an Eldar Avatar of Kaela Mensha Khaine and the rules say that it is a monstrous creature.

Are wraithguard monstrous creatures because they do not share the same height as most other infantry in the game? What about termagaunts? They are half the size of normal infantry. I am sure you can see the pattern arising here.

It is simply a model made by GW that GW defined as an Eldar Avatar originally for use in 40K and later ported over to epic. It is a model whose rules change along with how it is sculpted throughout the editions, just like any other.

Just so we know what we're talking about here, this is the Avatar model in question:

http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2093eldaravatrwarlks-h.htm

I'd make the argument that it's pretty hard to hide with any infantry available to eldar except maybe Wraithguard.

Admittedly, I'd be pretty scrupulous about claiming LOS to that guy, even if I can only see a tiny scrap of shoulder, but the possible advantage is so slight as to not really be worth much arguing.

Polonius wrote:

Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?

As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?

So, would you be fine if you played against someone who played a termagant 'counts as' a carnifex? Then hid the 'carnifex' behind a wall of gants to get up to you without being shot so that he was at full wounds when charging into combat? Anyone who tried this would be laughed at. But this model has the same name! What a world of difference![sarcasm]

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Where in the rules do they define what a monstrous creature is modeled as?

As I pointed out above, Cassius is T6 and infantry. Kharn is S6 and has the MC rules and is an infantry model. why is the avatar so bad?

So, would you be fine if you played against someone who played a termagant 'counts as' a carnifex? Then hid the 'carnifex' behind a wall of gants to get up to you without being shot so that he was at full wounds when charging into combat? Anyone who tried this would be laughed at. But this model has the same name! What a world of difference![sarcasm]

that was some clever arguing. See, I said something was legal, and then you asked if somebody doing someting completely different would also be ok. You sir, are a wit of quite notable distinction.

look, the rules have always been simple: you can always use old models, either as what they originally represented, or if no longer possible, as the closest logical counts as. In this case, it's an avatar. I don't know what else you're supposed to use an avatar for.

To actually address what shreds of a point your post contained, the old Avatar model was, for it's time, an unusually large infantry model. Even now it's pretty big. The avatar model is a fairly small monstrous creature. I think the gap, while noticeable, isn't nearly as ludicrous as you seem to think it is. To analogize to termagants (a small infantry model) and carnifexes (a very large MC model) is misleading at best and outright obtuse at worst.

LOVE YOU TOO FRAZZLED!

Okay.
You guys win.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay.
You guys win.

Thanks.

Woot! Victory lap!

Polonius wrote:

that was some clever arguing. See, I said something was legal, and then you asked if somebody doing someting completely different would also be ok. You sir, are a wit of quite notable distinction.

I was attempting to state that except for the name of the model (Which as near as I can tell shows up in the 1991 Blue catalog) is shared by the larger current model (the 1993 black catalogue) the situation is similar (not exact match, just similar). We are talking about deliberately using a smaller model to gain benefits not available to the current, larger model.

Again, this is not the exact same issue, but the motivation is the same. I do not enjoy games where the other side of the board will do anything to win. The BRB does not prevent this, therefore it is legal. But by that logic, the BRB does not prevent spiking your foe's drink either.

He wants to play it he can play it. But the first time he tries to deny line of sight based on being the smaller model, he has crossed a line with me.

I might be wrong as far as the game goes. You guys play to win at all costs. Okay.

Polonius wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay.
You guys win.

Thanks.

Woot! Victory lap!

LOL!
Sorry. I just had a vision of your Owl flying in a circle with a flag doing the victory lap.
It looked cool in my head.

Polonius wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay.
You guys win.

Thanks.

Woot! Victory lap!

This is wierd. I found myself looking at this image a few days back, as a consequence I now own the "Warlock with Force Staff 2" OOP mini.

I also looked for the avi as I think he looks aces.
Anyone got that OOP Farseer? I love that model.

Oh and the Warlock and Witchblade 1. Gotta love Eldar with laspistols.

I'll happily pay ca$hmonies for any of the OOP eldar stuff if anyone wants to shoot me a PM.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I was attempting to state that except for the name of the model (Which as near as I can tell shows up in the 1991 Blue catalog) is shared by the larger current model (the 1993 black catalogue) the situation is similar (not exact match, just similar). We are talking about deliberately using a smaller model to gain benefits not available to the current, larger model.

I think it's important in times like this to keep the issues straight. The first issue is if the model is legal to be used, which I think we all have to admit that it is. The second is if a player doing so is being unsportsmanlike, and if so, should he be sanctioned in some way.

the first issue is pretty objective and constant, but the second issue has very little to do with the model, it has everything to do with the player using it. A player might drop the old avatar, play it in good faith, and never try to play any LOS games with it.

Again, this is not the exact same issue, but the motivation is the same. I do not enjoy games where the other side of the board will do anything to win. The BRB does not prevent this, therefore it is legal. But by that logic, the BRB does not prevent spiking your foe's drink either.

Again, be careful of ascribing motivation to an act. I don't use old Rhinos because I want an advantage, I used them because they were cheap!

He wants to play it he can play it. But the first time he tries to deny line of sight based on being the smaller model, he has crossed a line with me.

Well, I think this is where you need to be aware of how difficult that would actually be. Think of it like this: can you block LOS to a terminator with space marines? not really. It would be very hard to actually pull that off with the old Avatar, and doing so would slow down the eldar advance. I think that in practice, there would be very few actual advantages. Of course, if you're playing with a toolbox, you'll probably know long before minor LOS issues with the Avatar show up.

I might be wrong as far as the game goes. You guys play to win at all costs. Okay.

I take a little issue with that statement. I would argue that we are being gentleman and good sports in allowing a neat older model that allows our opponents a minor advantage unto the table. There are rules, there are traditions, and there is simple good faith and honor among gamers, and I think that all of those agree with our position. I wouldn't make the argument that trying to deny an opponent use of a legal model simply because he gains an advantage is closer to WAAC behavior, but I'm sure somebody could. The very definition of WAAC implies that you would engage in any behavior not strictly forbidden to gain an advantage or deny your opponent one. While using a smaller avatar simply to make it easier to hide might be WAAC behavior, so would disallowing the model or demanding that you have LOS.

I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.

No, you play stupid.

I play fair by following the rules and not cheating. That is what fair is. If I have an older model, which through no fault of my own is smaller than the current generation, why am I an asshat for using it? One could easily call you an asshat for making a fuss, and I could then accuse you of not trying to win fairly (i.e. on the tabletop) but rather try and make me out to be the bad guy and a cheater when I have done no such thing.

So again, you would call me an asshat and a cheater because GW decided to make their new model ranges bigger?

Again, if its an issue, play its height as the current model. At start fo game or when deployed, pull the avatar out. State can play as physicial LOS, or if the opposing player would prefer, as the standard current height for an avatar.

If someone still complains, they are just being a mangina abnd should be mercilessly beaten with a wet noodle. Their socks should be forcefully removed and given to Malf, and they should be forced to moderate a debate between JohnnyH and HBMC. .

If you took that avatar for the purposes of hiding it out of line of sight, didn't offer to measure LOS as if it was the correct size (yeah, for what the rules are now, and why it has a large model now), I just wouldn't play you.

ph34r wrote:If you took that avatar for the purposes of hiding it out of line of sight, didn't offer to measure LOS as if it was the correct size (yeah, for what the rules are now, and why it has a large model now), I just wouldn't play you.

Why thank you for my Automatic Game win! Just another step closer to wining the tournament!

As said many many times before, if you are gonna be a douche in a friendly game, just because they are following the rules, even if it has a newer model, that's your problem. The rules dont say "oh and if there's a different model that is bigger, use that one as a reference for LoS" it says "use true Los"

In a tournament (assuming no house ruleage to the contrary), its 100% legal, you are under no obligation to measure LOS to hight of the new model, and to be annoyed by it makes you the asshat.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I actually liked the last part of your post, Polonius. But this situation is asking that I (the opposing player) be the gentleman and allow a cool looking model in the game. But it is ungentlemanly to attempt to gain advantage at the cost of someone else's courtesy. You could pull out a number of models (Ghazkull comes to mind, the old one was tiny and the new one is a dreadnought) and have this same argument. I like old models. I own a few myself (poor squat servitor... never used) but I never play them in any manner that takes advantage of the legal but immoral loopholes in the RAW. I play fair. I hope others have the same courtesy.

You're confusing gentlemanly and decency.

It would be insanely rude to not allow the avatar at all. It would be gentlemanly to allow the model and allow the LOS tricks. Part of being the bigger man is dealing with lesser men, and if you play a guy that really thinks hiding a model will really help him, than sometimes you just accept it. it's not cheating, I dont' even think it's immoral, it's simply a matter of taste. I would not do that, but I'm not going to presume that my opponent is a WAAC boor simply because of that. Now, if I have other evidence, than I would feel more comfortable docking points for the behavior, but then, I don't need just the LOS games, do I?

I am not an artist, so forgive the poor images.
Now, with a banner on the guardian champion you can completely block line of sight. ( I did not put it on there, but you can see how).
That makes this a no-go in my book.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I am not an artist, so forgive the poor images.
Now, with a banner on the guardian champion you can completely block line of sight. ( I did not put it on there, but you can see how).
That makes this a no-go in my book.

Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.

I can see it just fine.

You're right Polonius. But it irks me to see that the lower road is praised here. While there is nothing 'evil' about using this model, or using the small ghazkull thraka, or others of this type I feel it is shallow. I am being harder here than I would be in person. But I still think it shallow.

Polonius wrote:

Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.

I can see it just fine.

True. But I was making the point that this model does infact gain the ability to hide behind infantry and the current model lacks this. That is unsporting.

Banner dont count, either way. You cannot shoot if only a banner or wings or spearhead etc are showing, so likewise you need to be blocked by the body of the opponent. Terrain is different though, ironically an avenue of flags might provide cover that a unit does not.
The Avatar above would not be screened by guardians in any case, the real issues are low walls, wraithguard and vehicles. In all those cases the smaller avatar has a clear advantage.


Size Matters?

Yes you can abuse this model, but the abuse only breaks the rules if you try to fit the Avatar in a Wave Serpent or some such.
Now if I was at a Gladiator tourney or equivalent, where you are supposxed to chesse your lists taking a pint size Avatar for tactical advantage would be totally in the spirit of the game. Otherwise no however...


Does it Fit the background?

There is no reason why an Avatar cannot be that small. khaine is a god, he appears as large or as small as he wants to - within reason. Some epic artwork shows an Avatar the size of a titan, this one is little more than elf sized. As Khaine is an elf god, is that not appropriate. After all poseidon might appear as an old man or as a towering giant emerging from the waves. Other olympian gods and those of the Norse mythos also rescaled themselves to need. If you give good reason why your avatar is so small, it is excusable. Perhaps your craftworld too small to fully power the Avatar or Khaine forsees he will be clearing buildings or tunnels and chooses a more managable size.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You're right Polonius. But it irks me to see that the lower road is praised here. While there is nothing 'evil' about using this model, or using the small ghazkull thraka, or others of this type I feel it is shallow. I am being harder here than I would be in person. But I still think it shallow.

And I think you're seriously misreading the posts here.

Using old models without taking advantage: Good!
Utilizing any modeling feature for in game advantage: Bad!
Therefore, using old models to gain an advantage is still lousy behavior, but it's lousy regardless of whether or not it's an old model. Using an old model because you like it and the paint job and so in isn't inherently a "low road", and it's very rare that using those models would result in any actual in game advantage, particularly with ghazkgull, who is an IC anyway, not an MC.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Except putting a banner on a model to block LOS to stuff behind it is both legal and shady already. It doesn't make the Avatar itself shady.

I can see it just fine.

True. But I was making the point that this model does infact gain the ability to hide behind infantry and the current model lacks this. That is unsporting.

Except he doesn't gain that ability. I can still see him. Look, if a player shows up with a giant banner and a tiny avatar and set is all up so that you can't see from one angle, yes, he is being a jerk and you can call him out on that. I agree that it's bad!

You could hide the current Avatar behind a banner as well, it would just take a larger banner.