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.

Polonius wrote:
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.

If it was a converted huge banner then he is in the wrong, but a normal unconverted unit of guardians can block line of sight to this. That is the issue. To say that a conversion can do it to the current model does not justify the smaller model use. As stated by Orlanth terrain is a big part of it too. Or other models, say your own rhino. So many parts of the game would be altered by using a smaller model that we cant even accurately anticipate all of them.

I love older models. I actually thought about finding the very model in question and basing an entire army around it (counting it as a Autarch). I love the model. But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game. That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993. In the 16 years since that replacement, people should have updated. Especially under the current true LOS rules we are in.

hey, i would love to play against that in a tourney. its a great model, way cooler than the current GW one. and definatley on par with the FW one. just stick it on a prpoer sixed base and your good.

That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993.

Lets be clear. What you are really proposing is that, with every new codex all existing minis are now illegal. Yea...right...

Yeah, I'd probably allow it in a tournament I was running but I'd think it's a little ridiculous.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I love the model. But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game. That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993. In the 16 years since that replacement, people should have updated. Especially under the current true LOS rules we are in.

This is purely presumption.

Presumption that a person uses this only to 'spank over the game' by 'taking the low road'.
Presumption that all models should be replaced with newer models as they are released.

Models and and the rules in the codex that they reside in are always changing due to new rules. There is no way to stop it. It is, more or less whan all things are considered, a non issue.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But the only reason to play it is to spank over the game.

I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.

Frazzled wrote:

That model came out 1991 and was replaced 1993.

Lets be clear. What you are really proposing is that, with every new codex all existing minis are now illegal. Yea...right...

No, but if a model that was roughly mansized was changed over the editions to be a monstrous creature I would like to see the monstrous creautre version on the table not the mansized. I have no problem with the old carnies. Still big even if smaller. No problem with the old rhinos, still a vehicle even if smaller. Give me other examples and almost all of them will be the same thing but maybe slightly bigger.

This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.

Polonius wrote:

I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.

Here is what the OP said. It is in direct conflict with your other points.

Trench-Raider wrote: Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )

TR

In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.

Um, this is legal, fair and I would have no problem with it.

Why would you? Are you really gonna begrudge a guy who has been a loyal fan over the years but not had the cash to replace every single model he had with the overpriced crap of today?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.

I highlighted the bit that utterly invalidates your argument there.

The current GW stance is "Use true line of sight Modelling can be used for an advantage. This is Fair and Legal."
If you have a problem with that, don't play.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
This is more like using the old 2nd edition plastic orks as 'Ardboyz and hiding them behind the current plastic orks as just boyz, then claiming LOS is blocked.

First, it's really hard to block LOS to on infantry unit with another, because if you can see even one model you can shoot at the unit.

Second, what exactly is the problem if they did that?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Polonius wrote:

I think as long as you hold that attitude, we're not going to be able to agree. I think you're wrong, because I think it's demonstrable that there are other reasons to play the old models.

Here is what the OP said. It is in direct conflict with your other points.

Trench-Raider wrote: Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue )

TR

In the past, when GW had models that were no longer WYSIWYG, they advised using the model for 'count-as'. I have no problem using the model as count as for Warlocks, Autarchs, etc. Your points about wanting to use old models because they are cool is a good point, but use them for something more like the current equivalent.

Again, I think you're being deliberatly obtuse. Just because it is possible to use the model for advantage doesn't mean it's always the case. You said the only reason to use old models was to take advantage of rules, and that's clearly not true.

How is the Avatar not WYSIWYG? WYSIWYG mandates that all upgrades and weapons be modeled, and that all units are represented by the appropriate model. the old Avatar is an Avatar, is armed and equipt properly, and is in all ways totally WYSIWYG. You seem hung up on the idea that some how the MC rule implies a size, when it simply does not. there's a strong correlation of size to the MC rule, but things as small as Kharne and Tomb Spiders enjoy that rule.

edited: to delete

We disagree. I am wasting your time with my view.

If I keep trying to make my point I come across as a gaytard.

so I quit.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Using a unit of smaller sized older models as the upgraded Ard Boyz so you can hide them.... what is the problem with that? By the fluff... Everything!

Fluff is not rules.

Again, do you think you can actually screen old orks with new orks to the extnent that drawing LOS is impossible? I'd be shocked if that were even physically possible.

Using a limited release (2 years) small model to represent your god of war (written to have the monstrous creature rules due to is size) on the feild of battle is weak.

Limited release means the model was produced in a set quantity, not for a short amount of time.

Again, MC rules are not always related to size. I hate to harp this, but you seem to ignore it every time. Kharne counts as an MC in combat! Kahrne, a single infantry model. Cassius is T6! There is absolutely no reason not to have high stats on a model of that size.

The OP is looking to spank. The rest of the posters here sond more like they are defending old rhinos, wartrukks and such. I feel the prior is diffenernt from the latter. This is a complete re-work of fluff and models. Two very different ideas that share the same name.

Actually, the OP was arguably incorrect, as he was speaking of cover when the Avatar has a built in 4++. If we're talking LOS issues, than honestly, the difference between the old avatar and the new avatar is actually more or less the same as old wartrukks (very short) and current Wartrukks (quite tall).

Even if the OP were looking to spank, that doesn't mean it's the only reason, or even the main reason he'd bring the model. You seem to have a large amount of hostility towards something that is 1) probably not malicious, and 2) probably not actually an advantage in most games.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:edited: to delete

We disagree. I am wasting your time with my view.

If I keep trying to make my point I come across as a gaytard.

so I quit.

I think the problem is that you have an ax to grind about this issue and/or toward the OP, and you've really gotten it in your teeth. I think a careful read of the thread shows that we agree that taking the model solely to hide it easier is unsporting, we just don't see a problem with it due to the unlikelyhood of it being a factor in game and the fairly low chances that the sole reason it'd be brought are to gain advantage. In addition, the rules are pretty explicit about LOS and modeling. A lot of people don't like the current wound allocation rules because you can game them, but they're the rules, and to an extent playing by the rules is a key element of any game.

so can we assume there is no more point ot arguing over this? or will it be dragged on for another 5 pages or so?

He Who Stood wrote:so can we assume there is no more point ot arguing over this? or will it be dragged on for another 5 pages or so?

This is Dakka.
Of course it will be drug on for another 5 pages or so, especially if the posters refrain from trolling forcing the mods to lock it.

Osbad wrote:Playing with an old Avatar that has been in your collection but unpainted and unplayed with for 20 years.... that's a harder call.

I never thought about that, I've got old Land Raiders and Rhino's, old Terminators, would anybody complain if I played with them mix with my newer stuff?

Gwar! wrote: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.

I'm not serious enough about my toy soldiers to play in tournaments.
Sure, the model is legal. After all it is an avatar miniature. They don't have to measure height to the new model. I don't really have a problem with using old models in general. But if you seek out and use an old, smaller model, just to get a game advantage, then I just don't care about it as much as you, and I won't play you.
Being annoyed by someone using modeling deliberately to gain a significant advantage does not make me an asshat. You suggesting that I am an asshat makes you an asshat.

Eldar used to have a type of harlequin called an Avatar.
Can I use that? It's even smaller.
Legal but stupid.

Well, I'd argue that the model in question is an Avatar of the Laughing God, and was never intended to be an Avatar of Khaine.

Alex Kolodotschko wrote:Eldar used to have a type of harlequin called an Avatar.
Can I use that? It's even smaller.
Legal but stupid.

It's not WYSIWYG. It's doom is not wailing enough.

Gwar! wrote:

jabbakahut wrote:Back in the day, friend would use it, in his Epic army.

Reecius wrote:The rule states it must use the base it cam with, I see nothing illegal about it.

Wrong, thats a 4th ed rule. Only rule in 5th about bases is to tell your opponent if your are not using the standard base. Nothing more.

Dude, read what you just wrote, if you use it on the base it came with, you are using the standard base.

im late here since i had a few clan fights on call of duty 4


back to the topic at hand:

moderate a debate between JohnnyH and HBMC. .

easy, tell them both to be quiet, 1st one to object gets a weeks ban, the one that stays quiet gets to have a smug look for a while



i spent hours earlier looking for the old avatar model, and cant even find it :K
would it be classed as insane to pay £75 for one?


also in regards to old models, i use the old old hive tyrant
if anyone has any probs with him then they can piss off
its the best nid model ever made.

Yeah the Harly Avatar was a different guy, not at all connected to the Craft World Avatar. He was a normal Harly too, just a really tough leader.

Now, if you could bring the Solitair bakc, then I would be fired up! He was my favorite character in 2nd ed.

Gah, I had a Harliquin army with every model in it, so stupid of me to sell it! I had painted them really nicely too. Oh well, live and learn.

Dude, read what you just wrote, if you use it on the base it came with, you are using the standard base.

thank you for that reecius, as you can see i tried to tell him that
but he hates to agree with me lol

I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules. As mentioned that Avatar is to small and its base is not correct. While I consider base size and model size rather trivial I would still say NO because that model is such a far cry from its current iteration.

A comrade used his original screamer killers to represent dakkafexes in a nid list, with the latest edition ones as heavy support fexxes. They were absolutely perfect in that role.

oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.

So the [edit]CURRENT Eldar Avatar[/edit] model made over 15 years ago was made with 3rd, 4th or 5th edition in mind?

GW certainly are some seriously talented games designers to pull that trick off.

I wonder why we have so many debates over rules if that is true.

Must be just stupid people being stupid.

I think I heard Jervis say that once.

oni wrote:I'm going to give a resounding NO. I believe in using the current models as they have been designed for use with the current rules.

This statement lacks beggars belief. Why even buy minis? You're just renting them at that point.

I wish the current avatar was eldar sized. That is WAY cooler. Supernaturally strong and fast little guy is much better than big giant smashy melty elf.