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.

pretre wrote:

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.

It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

And if you're going to "hate on" one old mini, you should "hate on" any of them that offer a similar "advantage", not just the one orc transport.


edit:

pretre wrote:

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.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

rigeld2 wrote:It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

Footprint isn't the problem. Height is the problem. Also keep in mind that the picture you quoted is a new trukk that was not completely assembled.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

Nobs in an old trukk behind boys in a new trukk is twice as effective. That was the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It's much shorter, but the footprint isn't *that* much smaller.

Footprint isn't the problem. Height is the problem. Also keep in mind that the picture you quoted is a new trukk that was not completely assembled.

Read the post I was replying to (hint - I quoted it). The old truck isn't going to fit in the back of the new one.

Old HTs *can* screen for new HTs. And the old truck is absolutely not twice as effective as the new one - it does the exact same job, it's just easier to hide.

Nobs in an old trukk behind boys in a new trukk is twice as effective. That was the OP.

So no one would care if it was 12 plain boys in the truck?
What if I convert one of my old HTs to a Swarmlord?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

The wheels don't affect the footprint. They might affect the height slightly, but iirc it's not that significant a difference.


Yes, the Gorka truck is much smaller. There's zero reason to disallow it unless you're disallowing *all* old off-sized minis.

pretre wrote: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?

Absolutely, yes.

Unless I drop the ball badly, you should never have any transports left after the 2nd turn against my Necrons.

However, I know that isn't the answer you were looking for, and I do see your point. I just think that it's still a negligible advantage unless you're playing against someone with a solitary anti-tank source, and in that case the advantage is pointless because you'll probably table that player anyway. I just don't think the advantage is so great that it's cause to deny some players from using their purchased and built models. And if the concern is that you don't want to play against someone that is exploiting the rule and becoming TFG, well I think that even without this issue, you still wouldn't want to play against TFG, because TFG never has only a single reason to be avoided.

It just seems like the issue is blown way out of proportion to me. (pun not intended, but damn that is a good one!)

rigeld2 wrote:Read the post I was replying to (hint - I quoted it). The old truck isn't going to fit in the back of the new one.

I know what you were responding to. I wrote it. I said 'almost literally fits in the new one' and 1/4 size. Both of which are pretty true.

So no one would care if it was 12 plain boys in the truck?
What if I convert one of my old HTs to a Swarmlord?

The point is trying to get advantage on me. If you are specifically using your old HTs to gain an ingame advantage, I will have a problem with that. The OP is talking about the guy doing exactly that.

Also, the wheels and tanks on that gorka tank aren't stock. The later pics I posted are better. I'll edit that one out.

The wheels don't affect the footprint. They might affect the height slightly, but iirc it's not that significant a difference.

azazel the cat wrote:

pretre wrote: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?

Absolutely, yes.

Unless I drop the ball badly, you should never have any transports left after the 2nd turn against my Necrons.

However, I know that isn't the answer you were looking for, and I do see your point. I just think that it's still a negligible advantage unless you're playing against someone with a solitary anti-tank source, and in that case the advantage is pointless because you'll probably table that player anyway. I just don't think the advantage is so great that it's cause to deny some players from using their purchased and built models. And if the concern is that you don't want to play against someone that is exploiting the rule and becoming TFG, well I think that even without this issue, you still wouldn't want to play against TFG, because TFG never has only a single reason to be avoided.

It just seems like the issue is blown way out of proportion to me. (pun not intended, but damn that is a good one!)

I agree with you.
Everyone should be able to use the models they have bought and payed for, and things like this always score big on forum discussions
Alsong as the old smaller model is not used for the specific purpous of being smaller then i think it would never be a problem for anyone.

I dont play in tournaments only with my friends and we have all sorts of wierd conversions that are different sizes so no problem there.
But i can see where some people are coming from, if the situation is in a competition and the smaller model is used for that reason only.

regards ogard

pretre wrote:The point is trying to get advantage on me. If you are specifically using your old HTs to gain an ingame advantage, I will have a problem with that. The OP is talking about the guy doing exactly that.

Put the old truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Put a new truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?


I can use my HTs to gain an ingame advantage by givin MCs a cover save/block LoS *much* easier than if I used the new models (wow... same as the truck). Should a TO ban old models because it's *possible* to do so?


It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

Life is seldom as black and white as we would like it to be.

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

Life is seldom as black and white as we would like it to be.

In many cases you're right - in this one though...

Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

rigeld2 wrote:Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

Is your old HT 1/4 the size/mass of your new HT?

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Why (just one reason) is the fact that it's a transport more egregious a crime than any other model that's doubled (or more) in size?
Why is *this truck* considered cheating, bad sportsmanship, illegal, etc. but me fielding a short HT is just fine - even if he's converted into a swarmlord?

Is your old HT 1/4 the size/mass of your new HT?

It's about half.

And the gorka truck, while about 1/4 the height, is not about 1/4 the footprint.

Front size and height are the most important parts from a LOS standpoint.

So: Your HT is not 1/4 the height of the new model.

rigeld2 wrote:Put the old truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Put a new truck behind the new truck.

Can you see any of it?

Shoot the Front trukk, which is an open-topped vehicle with an armour value of 10.

Problem solved.

True, but if you can somehow shoot the back trukk, you might get lucky causing it to ram the front trukk and blow both up.

insaniak wrote:Shoot the Front trukk, which is an open-topped vehicle with an armour value of 10.

Problem solved.

But then the back trukk is probably obscured by the crater and boyz that are standing in it. The thing is only 1 3/8" tall.

So you shoot the back trukk with a different unit, that isn't directly in line with both trukks.


The point was that this all seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Trukks aren't the hardest units on the board to remove. How many armies only field one unit that is capable of taking out armour 10 vehicles? Are players just blobbing up their entire army in one place, so that the front trukk is blocking LOS from the entire enemy army?

Is it really that big a deal?

People are calling it game-breaking to use a smaller model than the current one, when in actual practice the worst that is generally going to happen is that the model will receive a cover save in some situations where it otherwise might not have... in an edition where getting a cover save is incredibly easy anyway.

LUKE: It looks like the orks did it, all right. Look, there's choppas, trukk tracks, it's just, I never heard of them hitting anyhting this big before!
BEN: They didn't, but we are meant to THINK they did. These tracks are side by side. Orks always ride single file to hide their strength and numbers.
LUKE: These are the same Fabricators who sold us our Deathstrike Missile Launchers and Chimeras!
BEN: And these blastpoints, too accurate for orks. Only Astartes are this precise.
LUKE: But, why would Astartes wanna slaughter Fabricaotrs? (something dawns on him) If they traced the vehicles here, they'd know who they sold them to and that'd lead them back...home!
BEN:Wait, Luke! It's too dangerous!

(Sorry all this talk about Trukks in single file, I couldn't help myself)

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

The potential of abuse? Like playing the game by the rules while using legal models? That kind of abuse?

insaniak wrote:Is it really that big a deal?

People are calling it game-breaking to use a smaller model than the current one, when in actual practice the worst that is generally going to happen is that the model will receive a cover save in some situations where it otherwise might not have... in an edition where getting a cover save is incredibly easy anyway.

This. I just don't see why a small truck (making it easier to get cover saves) is *any* different from a small HT (which makes it easier to get cover saves). In fact, I'd say the small HT is *worse* because of how important to the Tyranid army it is (Synapse, Paroxysm, OA).

The truck is a transport. Transports (especially AV10 Open topped ones) are easy to kill - even with cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It comes down to an all or nothing thing - either you're against anyone using old models because of the potential for abuse, or you're fine with it because any potential is also a negative for the model.

The potential of abuse? Like playing the game by the rules while using legal models? That kind of abuse?

Note that I'm arguing that the model is fine - but the "potential for abuse" was brought up, so I was addressing that. And his definition of abuse was getting cover saves when a new model shouldn't - which applies to far more than the gorka truck.

The new model behind an older one shouldn't get a cover save because it is larger and won't be obscured. The older model behind a newer one CAN get a cover save because it is smaller and can be obscured. As a player, I am not altering anything about the models or the rules of the game to play this way. There is no abuse. There is only the combination of existing parameters in an effort to maximize efficiency. Does that make me TFG more than anybody fielding the current Gray Knights? You want a game with pure equality? How about Chess where both players go first. This is not that game.

Is it me or is there alot of grey knights hate in this thread about ork trukks??

It could be Space Wolves. It's about illustrating a point. The game designers aren't very good. The game is not very well balanced. To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Grey Knights are just the most recent example.

Ogard wrote:Alsong as the old smaller model is not used for the specific purpous of being smaller then i think it would never be a problem for anyone.

I agree, but unfortunately in this case it is

Just using the old minis is fine - sure, you get cover saves easier, but if GW had never made a new trukk kit nobody would be complaining as there wouldn't be a larger model to compare it to. A specific setup to maximize the advantage of a mix of old and new minis, though? That stinks.

Redbeard wrote:To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Okay, so let me get this straight:
- It is not okay to reject someone's model for perceived or unperceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go.
- The game will always be unbalanced so differences in models between players for the same codex entry are irrelevant.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling doesn't matter because of the previous three bullets.

These are your positions, correct?

pretre wrote:Front size and height are the most important parts from a LOS standpoint.

So: Your HT is not 1/4 the height of the new model.

1/2 the height is 1/4 the front area which is what MC's are judged on for cover.

Because our contention is that:
- It is okay to sometimes reject someone's model based on perceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go as long as you are not modelling for advantage.
- The game is unbalanced but that does not excuse taking advantage of your opponent.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling does matter and is not okay.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:1/2 the height is 1/4 the front area which is what MC's are judged on for cover.

Say what now?

A Monstrous Creature is 4 inches wide and 4 inches tall. An older version of that Monstrous Creature is 4 inches wide and 2 inches tall. You're telling me that 8 is 1/4 of 16?

pretre wrote:

Redbeard wrote:To reject someone's model because it gives them a perceived advantage that they didn't pay for is ignoring the fact that due to the poor design and balance in the game, lots of armies get things they're not really paying for, simply due to sloppy writing.

Okay, so let me get this straight:
- It is not okay to reject someone's model for perceived or unperceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go.
- The game will always be unbalanced so differences in models between players for the same codex entry are irrelevant.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling doesn't matter because of the previous three bullets.

These are your positions, correct?

Not entirely.

1) I think it is okay to reject an opponent's model in cases where abuse is blatant. Lying down wraithlords, or grots on 60mm bases just to take up space are good examples. These are also conversions. I don't think it is okay to reject an unconverted citadel miniature, even if is not the most recent. They paid for it, it's good - that much is my stance, in no uncertain terms. But there are times when it is reasonable to reject a conversion.

2) Much like 1. If it's a citadel miniature and it's built as intended at the time it was bought, it should be legal. Even if they changed their molds later. Or their bases. Or whatever else.

3) For the most part, yes, barring egregious intentional conversions, as mentioned above. I don't think there is a single citadel miniature, regardless of how old, that is so unfair that it creates a relevant unbalance (breaks the game). Yes, the old Avatar, or Hive Tyrant, are smallish models. Compare their statline and cost with Mephiston, who is as small as those older models.

4) This is the hard one. How do you go about proving intent, versus simple smart play. In the case described in the original post, what we know is that a player has a new trukk and an old trukk. We don't know that he can afford to buy another new trukk. We know that, with what he has, he's using them as intelligently as possible; he is most certainly gaining the most use of his trukks by putting the more valuable unit in the one that's easier to hide. Is this done with intent to take unfair advantage of an opponent, or is it done because putting the nobs in the big one doesn't work.

With that in mind, and again, considering the egregious examples from above, I don't think it is appropriate to claim that using a legal citadel miniature is taking unfair advantage of an opponent. It leads to a slippery slope. At what point do I get to say my opponent is fielding fifteen long fangs, which are pretty universally recognized as being underpriced, to get an advantage on me? My opponent has recognized that long fangs are 'good' and improve his chance of winning. They give him an advantage over me. I, similarly, recognize that my older trukks are good, and give me an advantage in return. Why do you keep insisting that one of these advantages is unfair, while the other is applaudable competitive play?

pretre wrote:Because our contention is that:
- It is okay to sometimes reject someone's model based on perceived advantage.
- As long as you bought and paid for it, you are good to go as long as you are not modelling for advantage.
- The game is unbalanced but that does not excuse taking advantage of your opponent.
- Intent to take advantage of your opponent using modelling does matter and is not okay.

So if I use my shorties, I need to make sure that they're never behind my warriors (because then they'd be hidden) or really behind any other models (because of cover) or else I'm modeling for advantage?

pretre, I just had an interesting thought, since you already posted a couple pics of the size difference would you mind posting a few 'grots eye view' pics of what they would look in line, suggested angles would be 0° 20° and 340° that might give a better idea of how it looks, maybe do the same with 2 new trukks to compare

Shameless codex envy that GW gives an equal to advantage to all players of that codex does not justify a specific person gaining a personal advantage not available to all players of the codex.

GW has the right to change the game by increasing base size and model size and do so equally across an entire codex. An individual player does not, especially when he mix and matches different sized models as he deems fit.

You can't have one ork player running Ghaz around a table with blocking LOS with small barricades and hedges and assaulting with a 60mm base and then having 12 other ork players with larger trukks getting blown apart and Ghaz on his 40mm base. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone involved. Especially if the ork player knows he is gaming for an advantage by blocking LOS to a vehicle who shouldn't be able to get such an advantage and gaining 20mm distance when disembarking from transports.

It is game breaking. GW can break the game by modifying models but a player cannot. Well-run events will either ask models not be used or expect players to treat them for all purposes as the modern sized equivalent. It is very common for termies to be asked to be blue-taced to 40mm bases, for shooting pretend it is a taller model and leave the appropriate sized crater. If you are not explicitly running old trukks for an in-game advantage there should be no valid reason to refuse to accept playing the models as the new 'modern' size. I mean if it is really for nostalgia sake, you won't mind allowing your opponent to treat LOS as if it is 4" tall like the current trukk.