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.

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics. Its very reminiscent of how looted and ramshackle Trukks should look and operate on the Battlefield, not factory perfect mimicry.

Game wise, I think two perfectly legal models can be used any way that the player wishes to use them. It is not 'modeling for advantage' when the models are unconverted GW. Good on him for using unorthodox and the totally legal rules to his advantage. At least he didn't sell out with Gray Knights.

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

If you could hide your trukks completely behind a 1.5" tall hill, or reliably give it cover from any infantry, it would make a difference.

azazel the cat wrote: 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 think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest.

If GW chooses to ban a certain older model from their own tournaments, that only really has an impact on tournament play... and outside of GW's games, it's not at all unusual for gaming tournaments to limit what can and can't be used. CCG tournaments often only allow the latest few expansions, and have extensive 'banned' or limited lists of cards that are just not allowed or only allowed in certain quanitities for tournament play. Star Wars Miniatures had one miniatures that was banned from official tournaments, and I believe D&D minis had a few as well.

Speaking as someone who has one of the old trukks, and started using it as a buggy years before the new trukk was released because of its size, I would have absolutely no problem with a tournament choosing to ban outdated models that have been updated at a different size, just as I would have no problem with a tournament stipulating base sizes. To be honest, I find it surprising that this didn't happen a decade ago.

Conversely, I have no problem with using those same models in casual play, or with an opponent using those models.

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?

This, I do agree with though. I made a similar point earlier.

Having said that, it doesn't change my view that it;s not a problem for tournaments to be more closely regulated.

Mannahnin wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

If you could hide your trukks completely behind a 1.5" tall hill, or reliably give it cover from any infantry, it would make a difference.

The new Trukks do get reliable cover from infantry. Even from gretchin if you put the two runherds in front of it.

50% of its front arc completely hidden? No bits visible between their legs or under their arms? Really? I'd like to see a photo.

As long as you don't bee-line them, sure. Sadly my camera fails to ever make any good photos of my orks due to bloodaxe camouflage scrambling its software (yes, really), but someone else might be able to do so.

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Can a War Walker behind a Falcon legally get cover from an enemy unit on the other side? Yes. And why? Because they are two legal and unconverted GW models. You are comparing LOS and cover shenanigans from totally legal and unconverted models with modeling for advantage way back in 3rd ed. If every 20 point Space Marine on the table legally gets Force Weapons, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally. It's a game. You learn the rules and you exploit them. Just because you may not care about playing competitively does not mean that everybody should stop doing so as well.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:If every 20 point Space Marine on the table legally gets Force Weapons, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally.

Wow. Just wow.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:, I get to use my larger legal Trukks to provide cover for my smaller legal Trukks legally. It's a game. You learn the rules and you exploit them. Just because you may not care about playing competitively does not mean that everybody should stop doing so as well.

It is GAMEMANSHIP, which is frowned upon in many circles and especially at tourneys. You can play competitively without exploiting rules or lack of rules for an unintended advantage.

A question: Has any official GW tournament ever banned the use of the old school Trukks?

'ard boyz has totally banned gorka trukks and oversized custom BWs. Battlewagon bans are very common especially at 'ard boyz where people are into 'winning' and not into cool models so 'rule of cool' doesn't save converted wagons. GW has never said 'BANNED' but TOs ban them all the time.

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics

Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

I can name a page where this is not allowed. It is called PAGE 3. And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

nkelsch wrote:
'ard boyz has totally banned gorka trukks and oversized custom BWs.

Can you provide a reference for this? I didn't think 'ard boyz was so unified as to wholly ban something like that.

Actually, I think it is great that the Orks have this option to utilise differently sized/shaped vehicles with the exact same characteristics

Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

I can name a page where this is not allowed. It is called PAGE 3.

Strange, I don't see that on page 3. Let me see, Page 3:

The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow...

Yup, my old trukks are citadel miniatures. And, that's about it on page 3. Well, except that my trukk didn't come with a base. Did you even read page three before making this claim?

I'll go one further. My rulebook has a page 225. On this page it details how players are allowed to customize their miniatures. On this page, there are examples of models on larger bases than they come with. My rulebook says nothing about such models being disallowed because they're larger or smaller than what is currently sold.

And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

I still assert that using these old models does not break the game. You have yet to produce any supporting evidence for this claim. It changes the game, yes. It gives a marginal advantage, yes. It does not break the game, the game plays just as well with the old models as with the new ones. As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

Redbeard wrote: Did you even read page three before making this claim?

You know the most important rule. The one that shows if you are being a dick, then your opponent won't play you.

And when you model for advantage and break the game like this, you have broken the most important rule and the game never gets played.

I still assert that using these old models does not break the game. You have yet to produce any supporting evidence for this claim. It changes the game, yes. It gives a marginal advantage, yes. It does not break the game, the game plays just as well with the old models as with the new ones. As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

You would be wrong. Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent. There is a fineline between riding model nostalgia and doing what the OP pointed out. 60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating. If you can field 60mm ghaz, then I can add +1 to all my difficult terrain rolls as well because that is basically what the oversized base accomplishes.

And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event. Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

Personally I think this whole debate is stupid. It doesn't matter if it is the older trukk or the newer one and as to having both older and newer models well some people can only afford so much at a time. As to TOs demanding deviation from the basic tournament rules regarding models (iirc 75% of each model is to be GW/Citadel, age doesn't matter, based on the bases the models are provided in package) then I will demand that the TO buy me every model I need to replace and allow me time to do a rough build before starting the tournament.

nkelsch wrote:

Redbeard wrote: Did you even read page three before making this claim?

You know the most important rule. The one that shows if you are being a dick, then your opponent won't play you.

That rule is on Page 2. :(



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I'll go one further. My rulebook has a page 225. On this page it details how players are allowed to customize their miniatures. On this page, there are examples of models on larger bases than they come with. My rulebook says nothing about such models being disallowed because they're larger or smaller than what is currently sold.

Actually, page 3 does mention scenic and larger bases and mentions opponent consent.

As someone with a Daemon army, I claim that the Grey Knight codex has broken the game far more than any difference in models could.

Completely OT, but I disagree. Yes, the GK codex can break the game for Daemons, but then it loses to everyone else (shunt-spam isn't very competitive unless you feel like cockpunching a daemons player). I have seen Daemons do pretty well against GK in the BR forum. Tailoring completely screwing one army is nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saiisil wrote:. As to TOs demanding deviation from the basic tournament rules regarding models (iirc 75% of each model is to be GW/Citadel, age doesn't matter, based on the bases the models are provided in package)

Those rules don't exist. GW doesn't have 'basic tournament rules'.

then I will demand that the TO buy me every model I need to replace and allow me time to do a rough build before starting the tournament.

Or you could, you know, not go to their tournament because I guarantee no one is going to buy you models so you can play in their tournament.

nkelsch wrote:
You would be wrong. Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent.

Again, you're assuming that the model size is somehow factored into the point cost. It isn't. They've changed base-sizes for some models in between codex releases, and haven't published any errata indicating that they should now cost more, or less. Gaining an advantage that is expressly permitted in the rules is neither gamebreaking nor rude. It's expressly permitted to use citadel miniatures. (It's even expressly permitted to convert them, although this isn't at issue here.)

How you can claim that the size of a model is even remotely part of the testing and pointing process for the model, when so many are released years after the codex? The official ork battlewagon wasn't even around when the codex was released, let alone when they were developing it. That it's three inches wide by seven inches long is just how it was made, not an integral part of the price of the vehicle.

Lets say they release a new buggy next year. The codex isn't being redone next year. Does that mean I should vacate any wins I had when using the old buggies because I had an advantage I didn't pay for (and didn't even know about) at the time? Or does that mean I have to accept a disadvantage that I'm not getting a point break for? No, of course not. A new model just means a new model, and isn't a factor in the point cost.

60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating. If you can field 60mm ghaz, then I can add +1 to all my difficult terrain rolls as well because that is basically what the oversized base accomplishes.

This is a strawman. I don't know where you're getting it from. It's irrelevant in the discussion of whether my Citadel Miniature trukks are legal or gamebreaking. But, just to pose a question - suppose that when they switched to finecast, they realized that he'd look better on a larger base. This has happened with other models. Is he still gamebreaking because of their packaging decision, or is then just cooler because of it?

There are plenty of character models that are sold on bases larger than would be expected for a model of that type. Three ork upgrade characters, Snikrot, Zagstrukk, and the Captain come to mind. Each of these replace a nob - a model on a 25mm base, with the special character, supplied with a 40mm base. Surely this must be gamebreaking? Or are you saying that 15mm of base is incorporated into the cost of these models. I still claim that their base size is not even remotely a factor in the game design or point assignment process, as often, these models aren't even available when the codex is in development. All three of the upgrade characters I mention didn't have official models released with the codex, and the conversions for them usually assumed 25mm bases, based on the nob they replaced. I don't see the game breaking because of the change.

When the daemon codex was released, Seekers of Slaanesh were sold with 40mm round bases (and fantasy cav bases). Most of mine have these bases. Over two years later, they released the new plastic seekers, now with a rounded bike base. This impacts an army that has to deepstrike. Do you think the game designers knew, two years in advance, that the model designers would be coming up with a new base type - one that previously didn't exist at all - and price the seekers based on these new bike bases? No. Those bases change the game for the seekers, but they don't break it, and to claim they do is just ridiculous.

And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event.

Each 'ard boyz event is run by an independent game store, and each store is responsible for their own rules in these cases. If the independent store wants to make an extra sale by forcing players there to buy new models, I don't really see this as indicative of GW policy.

Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

That's their choice. They make a lot of decisions I don't agree with, and their interpretations of contentious rules are frequently overturned when GW finally gets around to putting out their official FAQ. (For example, the INAT Faq reversals on Lash of Submission and the tyranid doom) Just because they do something does not make it right. As has been stated many times, their rulings are more often done to avoid fights than because of what is right. It's easier to appease the 95% who either don't play orks or don't have old trukks than it is to allow them.

This discussion is relevant to my interests. Over half of my space marine vehicles are on the old rhino chassis, and my Hive Tyrant is the old 2nd edition model. The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers. Not to mention all my terminators being on 25mm bases because that's what they were supplied with.

I just go by the "It's a citadel model, it's on the right base, so it's legal" style of rules.

Carnage43 wrote:This discussion is relevant to my interests. Over half of my space marine vehicles are on the old rhino chassis, and my Hive Tyrant is the old 2nd edition model. The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers. Not to mention all my terminators being on 25mm bases because that's what they were supplied with.

I just go by the "It's a citadel model, it's on the right base, so it's legal" style of rules.

Sounds good to me.

Here's my take on small Ork Trukks:

Pros:
-Easier to gain cover saves

Cons:
-More difficult to give cover to other models
-Less width for tank-shocking

That generally seems pretty balanced to me. And as to the argument about bases, I think some of these allegations are highly dubious given that there is an actual precedent in the Space Wolves codex with Canis Wolfborn, wherein the codex expressly forbids using a larger base in order to gain an advantage with his special rules. And although not expressly stated in many of codices (Necron Wraiths using Coil Whips, for example) where the models would gain a clear advantage if they were on a larger base, generally if the oddly-sized base is still the correct base for the model, and it does not alter the power of special rules such as with Canis, then what advantage is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: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.

Right. But that was 3rd. We're talking about the old school Trukks versus the 5th Ed. models. So is your concern still relevant? I don't really play in tournaments, so I don't know: do Orks win a lot of modern tournaments, or come close enough that this tactic would make the difference?

Also, I don't think that anyone has answered this question without grave ambiguity get. Someone mentioned that they get an advantage in the infinitive, but never qualified whether or not that advantage actually has any effect on games versus Orks.

azazel the cat wrote:Pros:
-Easier to gain cover saves

Cons:
-More difficult to give cover to other models
-Less width for tank-shocking

Chances are your small trukks aren't tank shocking and if you're mixing them with large trucks then they don't need to give cover to other models. Those cons aren't cons if they don't actually come up.

And as to the argument about bases,

Page 3, main rulebook. It covers bases.

Also, I don't think that anyone has answered this question without grave ambiguity get. Someone mentioned that they get an advantage in the infinitive, but never qualified whether or not that advantage actually has any effect on games versus Orks.

Yes. It has an advantage in the game. Being able to choose which vehicles can or cannot be shot at by your opponent with any terrain setup is a significant advantage. Making sure that your most valuable unit is in that hide-able vehicle is definitely an advantage that allows you to pick and choose where they are going since your opponent can't remove them from their transport forceably.

Put it this way as way of comparison. I'm playing my SW. I have normal sized Razorbacks and Rhinos that I use as my front line. I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

pretre wrote:Those rules don't exist. GW doesn't have 'basic tournament rules'.

I do recall that there was something along those lines in an older rulebook, haven't really gotten into the 5th ed tournament scene.

Or you could, you know, not go to their tournament because I guarantee no one is going to buy you models so you can play in their tournament.

Point is that not all tournaments will have their rules that deviate from the base posted well enough before a tournament and will discuss things as things as they come up. In all seriousness if a TO tells someone that has showed up to the tournament paid their entrance and then was told they cant use their Official GW figs they best expect to be asked to buy that player replacement figs.

Saiisil wrote:In all seriousness if a TO tells someone that has showed up to the tournament paid their entrance and then was told they cant use their Official GW figs they best expect to be asked to buy that player replacement figs.

Not really. In fact, that is that last thing I would assume would happen, right behind handies in the alley. The first would be referring the player to the rule packet. The second would probably be an offer of a refund of entrance fee.

Being asked and actually doing are two different things. First not all tournaments have rule packets, in fact when I regularly went to tournaments the only ones that had rule packets were at conventions and the few tournaments I have been to in the last few years (all at LGS) there were no packets. The second would be reasonable yes but I wasn't saying anything about what they should do, just something they should expect from players being told that they may no use their perfectly legal by the rules of the game models.

Carnage43 wrote:The Hive Tyrant is so much smaller then the current ones that it's possible to screen him with 2nd edition genestealers.

Nobody spoke to this and it seems like the exact same issue.



I can screen the one on the right with Hormagaunts. The one on the left I have to work at screening. I haven't had anyone object to using the model on the right - I've had people say they love to see it.

What's the difference? That the tiny truck is a transport? Is that what it comes down to?

nkelsch wrote:It is GAMEMANSHIP, which is frowned upon in many circles and especially at tourneys. You can play competitively without exploiting rules or lack of rules for an unintended advantage.

Then why are not railing against players who insist on fielding the current Gray Knights?

nkelsch wrote:Page number where orks are granted this rule please?

ORK CODEX, pg 100, TROOPS: DEDICATED TRANSPORT VEHICLES: TRUKK: Cost: 35 points

nkelsch wrote:Getting an advantage that is not paid for by points is gamebreaking, unfair and rude to your opponent. There is a fineline between riding model nostalgia and doing what the OP pointed out. 60mm Ghaz is also gamebreaking and flat out cheating.

First, I paid for my Ork Trukk, glue, and paint with with real money, time, and effort. Then I used the appropriate amount of army points to pay for the use the model in my army. What did I not pay for? As for unfair and rude, I didn't write the Gray Knight Codex. Did GhazgkhulI even ever come on a 60mm base? Are you referring to an alteration of the model, or conversions done before his model was released?

nkelsch wrote:And many 'ardboyz disallow non-standard sized models. I have personally seen oversized BWs banned over the past 2 years at 'ardboyz. It is an official GW event. Adepticon and NOVA have also enforced sizes on ork models. You can pretend it doesn;t happen but banning of oddly sized ork vehicles or forcing players to treat them as if they are stock size for all game purposes is a very real reality that is very widespread.

If they are running their own tournaments, they can make any decisions they want on how they are going to do it. I am also glad that these organizations regulate modeling for advantage. However, I didn't model anything for any advantage or disadvantage, some GW sculptor did. I don't use 'non-standard sized models'. I use the ones out of the box.

pretre wrote:I put Njal in a rhino that is approximately 1/4 as tall as the rest of my vehicles and hide him behind them until Turn 4 or 5 when I start getting some good storm results. Would that fly in a game against you?

Is the 1/4 tall rhino a legal, unconverted GW model? If so, why would you not get to use it?

I have been reading this discussion for a while now and for those of us who have not seen the size difference, is there anyone who can put up a ppicture with the old and new trukk next to eachother?

regards ogard

I agree with rigeld. I have an old HT, and a new HT. I also have the old 'thrope (that stood on legs and had big hands) and I have the new skinny 'thrope. In one case the older model is easier to screen, in the other (even though they are infantry) the newer one is easier to screen (what with its skinny as heck profile). All four are legal models, and I've never had anyone complain about me using them. So what exactly is the problem with old trukks vs new trukks?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Is the 1/4 tall rhino a legal, unconverted GW model? If so, why would you not get to use it?

It was an example to illustrate a point.

So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

rigeld2 wrote:So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

Transport capacity, probably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and the old trukk almost literally fits in the back of the new truck. It's like 1/4 size/mass.

rigeld2 wrote:So yeah - exactly the same issue as the HT. Why does no one - including dakka (there was a thread that I can't find now where I was encouraged to bring them out) - care about the short HTs, but there's accusations of cheating, lots of bad blood, etc. over a short transport?

sounds like its the problem of putting nobs in the small one and boys in the big one.
Then running the nob one behind the bigger one with the boys in it so noone can shoot at it since its so much smaller.

atleast thats what i have decerned from this discussion so far.


regards ogard


edited to make the first sentence i wrote somewhat readable.

Ogard wrote:Sounds like its the problem of putting nobs in the small one and boys in the big one and running the nob one behind the other one and noone can shoot at it.
atleast thats what i have decerned from this discussion so far.

On the nose. lol

It doesn't equate to the same thing with HT. If you could use old HTs to screen new HTs and the old HT was twice as effective as the new one, that might be a cause for concern.