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 obvious the intentions of its use aren't beardy so I don't see why not.

If someone refused to allow you the use of that Trukk, then they aren't worth playing mate.

Many older players still have (or remember) the older, smaller models and think they're cool. You might get some complaints if they're so much smaller that you can hide them behind the new version and actually do so. Otherwise it's fine - they're smaller so harder to target but they also have a harder time drawing LOS for themself.

You bring those to my table, the first thing I would do is gawk at them. then treat them like any other vehicle. only TFG would try to deny you the use of them. after all, the old (and shorter) Space Marine models are still legal, and the old termies, on regular sized bases because they were the only base at the time, are legal. why would a shorter trukk not be?

Firstly, a disclaimer - If you showed up with an old ork army that contained lots of old stuff including a bunch of old trukks, I wouldn't even bat an eye. Of course you could play with it.

That said...

Valkyrie wrote:It's an official GW model

Maenus_Rajhana wrote: It's an official model

Brother SRM wrote:It's a legal, official GW model. !

No, it's not. It WAS an official model. It IS not an official model.

The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently. Even if a model was, at one point, official, that doesn't mean it still is official now. As such, you can't hide behind this argument.

Of course, most people will still let you use old models, so long as they're put on the correct base, but as the trukk model HAS no base, the fact that it's 50% smaller is actually relevant, unlike with old termies on new 40mm bases.

If you're not using the tininess of the trukk to your advantage, no one should ever complain, especially since, as said, we're talking about orks, who can show up with any goofy scratchbuilt thing and call it "offishul!". That said, you're doing it on a gentleman's agreement. If someone made a stink in a tournament, I think I'd have to hold my nose and side with them on this issue.

Just like if someone showed up with an eldar falcon



or a tiny old dreadnought not on a base



Saying "yeah, well 25 years ago, this was a legal model" doesn't have much weight on whether it's a legal model now.

My only problem would be that I hate most of GW's vehicles from second edition/ early third edition; they were all ugly as sin. The Rhinos, Predators, Land Raiders, Land Speeders, Trukks, Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, none of them were ever aesthetically pleasing to me in the slightest.

However I would let you use them as they're legal.

 Ailaros wrote:
No, it's not. It WAS an official model. It IS not an official model.

Just curious... From where exactly are you getting your definition of 'official model'...?

Where are you?

I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".

I have five of the suckers that I bought when 3rd ed Ork were newly released and still use them. Never had a problem, probably never will.

 Ailaros wrote:
Where are you?

I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".

It's a Games Workshop model. It is allowed to be used in games made by Games Workshop. It doesn't need to be the most up to date model, so long as it's a 40k model. The rulebook even mentions this and says that you can keep models on the bases they came on, even if they were something like Terminators who now come on larger bases than they did back in the day. It says you should consider larger bases, but you don't have to. GW has never said anything along the lines of "You can't use old Rhinos, you have to buy new ones!" or whatever. Go nuts, use old models, and be awesome.

 Ailaros wrote:
Where are you?

I'm curious where it says that "official" is as broad as "anything ever made".

I'm not seeing anywhere in the rulebook that defines which models are or are not considered 'official'... So, again, on what are you basing your definition?

He appears to be using the following definition, as seen in his post:

Ailaros wrote:The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently.

Yes, I get that. What I'm asking is why.

insaniak wrote:Yes, I get that. What I'm asking is why.

Well, the first sentence of the rulebook is "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 20,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow." That implies that in order for the rules to apply to whatever you're putting down on the table, said things must be citadel miniatures. Or, rather, it doesn't need to be a citadel miniature in order to be official, but citadel miniatures do qualify.

Then it gets to a linguistic one. Any current citadel miniature has the possibility to be currently official. Just like any blue-colored mini has the possibility to be blue-colored and official, or one that smells like cheese has the possibility of being cheese-odored and official.

How, then do we know that a non-current miniature is currently official? It doesn't explicitly say that they're not (it doesn't say a lot of things. Is there a prohibition against using WHFB minis in a 40k game? Hard to say yes to that one, looking at demons), but neither does it explicitly say that they do.

Therefore, we have current minis that we can say ARE official, and we have old minis that we can say WERE official, but we can't say that they ARE official still. Hence...

Ailaros wrote:Saying "yeah, well 25 years ago, this was a legal model" doesn't have much weight on whether it's a legal model now.

... and this might not matter, except, that in the case of trukks here, the two models behave substantially different, unlike, say, something modelled on a base most of the time.

You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct. You have a model you know is currently official, and one you don't. You should therefore give precedence to that one that you know that is, over the one you don't.

 Ailaros wrote:
... but we can't say that they ARE official still.

Why not? Does it stop being a citadel model when they stop making it?

You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct

Why?

 insaniak wrote:

You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct

Why?

My exact question.

There are several ways for me to pay my gas bill. They are all correct.

There are several routes to my local Tesco. They are all correct.

I think the problem is even harder to define though. GW itself does not say that any model is "official", so how can any model by unofficial? As GW seem to actively discourage competitive play, they choose not to set what is and is not official. We, not being GW, are not able to decide what is and is not official. Thus, nothing is either official or unofficial.

insaniak wrote:Why not? Does it stop being a citadel model when they stop making it?

No, but you missed my point.

A model that has the adjective "citadel" and "current" is different than a model that has the adjectives "citadel" and "old". It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.

Unless you can find some place where "currently official" is something that, once applied to a model, applies to it in perpetuity, regardless of any changes to the model line.

insaniak wrote:

You have two different models that behave in two different ways. Only one of the ways can be correct

Why?

Because the new one is tiny. It's not just half the width and length, it's half the height as well. It is going to be much, much easier to get cover saves with the old trukk than the new ones, and it's going to be much, much easier to hide it out of LOS completely. This substantially effects the survivability of the model, thus your choice of model is substantial to how it plays in the game.

 Ailaros wrote:
A model that has the adjective "citadel" and "current" is different than a model that has the adjectives "citadel" and "old".

Well yes, if you choose to apply arbitrary tags to models, they are different. If I label my standing space marine 'tallie' and my kneeling space marine 'shortie' they become different... and since they function differently in the game, I can only then use one of them? Which one, since they're both current models...?

It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.

And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?

Because the new one is tiny. It's not just half the width and length, it's half the height as well. It is going to be much, much easier to get cover saves with the old trukk than the new ones, and it's going to be much, much easier to hide it out of LOS completely. This substantially effects the survivability of the model, thus your choice of model is substantial to how it plays in the game.

No, I understand that it functions differently. I'm asking why you think that you can't have two models that function differently in the game. Where do the rules make this distinction?

 insaniak wrote:

It's not that when a model becomes out of production, it stops being a citadel miniature. It's that when the adjective "currently official" applies to a different model than the one you have, then you have to use those new models to be currently official, as that title no longer applies to old models.

And where does the rulebook require you to use 'currently official' models?

Nowhere, there is but one condition: ' The 'Citadel Miniatures used to play ... are referred to as 'models' ..' I don't think the rules mention 'citadel' after this mention on pg. 2.

They certainly don't mention 'current' or 'official' in any way.

 Shandara wrote:
Nowhere, there is but one condition: ' The 'Citadel Miniatures used to play ... are referred to as 'models' ..'

Which, when you stop and actually read it, isn't so much a condition as simply an assumption that people will use Citadel Miniatures to play 40K...

Rakeeb wrote:
He appears to be using the following definition, as seen in his post:

Ailaros wrote:The current official model is the current model that GW produces and distributes currently.

Too bad that definition seems to have been gak straight out his ass.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, I get that. What I'm asking is why.

For the same reason that the official version of 40k is the one that is currently produced. Once GW drops a product it's no longer part of the game.

GW has always supported using outmoded models in the game, though. Whether just as themselves or via counts-as.

 Mannahnin wrote:
GW has always supported using outmoded models in the game, though. Whether just as themselves or via counts-as.

Except one important part of counts-as is that the size of the model has to be the same. By ending production of of the old model and replacing it with a new one GW is saying "this is the size of this unit", so any counts-as model has to be roughly the same size. If it was just an aesthetic difference (for example, the old kans vs. the new ones) this wouldn't be a problem, but when you're talking about models with non-trivial size differences it's time to buy a new one.

 Peregrine wrote:
For the same reason that the official version of 40k is the one that is currently produced. Once GW drops a product it's no longer part of the game.

You realise that logic is probably going to render at least half of the current codexes as no longer 'official' then, since GW won't be still currently printing them?

 Peregrine wrote:
Except one important part of counts-as is that the size of the model has to be the same.

Is it? There have been any number of people running Squat armies using Marine or Guard rules who might be inclined to disagree on just how important that is.

By ending production of of the old model and replacing it with a new one GW is saying "this is the size of this unit",...

To be honest, given the scale discrepancies in their ranges since, well, forever, I very much doubt GW are even considering that sort of level of technicality when they create most new models. In most cases, models have been made bigger so that more detail can be crammed onto them, not because GW thought that regular Guardsmen would be hideously unbalanced unless they made them 3mm taller

Query: is it a GW model, yes
Is it in fact a GW Trukk, yes

Is it legal, it certainly is. Not seeing why people are having issues here. It's like Old termies on small bases, legal as that's the bases that were supplied. Got a problem with it, I don't care cuz thems the rules

 insaniak wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 Chuck_Traynor wrote:
but I honestly never have seen that cut out used. Ever.

This needs to be changed

No, it really doesn't. The cut-out dreadnought was intended to bolster the ork forces for one of the scenarios in the 2nd edition starter set, to even things up a little bit since the set was a little skewed in the marines' favour otherwise. It was never intended to be a playable miniature beyond that, and the fact that people persist in claiming that it is has never failed to amaze me. It's not a miniature. It's a cardboard cutout.

Actually, I recall someone on these boards talking about being at a GW tournament where someone used it. It was ruled that since it was an official GW product it could be used.

The model isn't even that old, and it's not that different. There's no huge difference like some of the really old models.

This version of the trukk isn't even very old.

That would depend somewhat on your definition of 'old'... Gorkamorka was released in 1997.

 insaniak wrote:
You realise that logic is probably going to render at least half of the current codexes as no longer 'official' then, since GW won't be still currently printing them?

But they ARE still selling existing stocks, releasing FAQs and updates, etc, and they haven't released a new codex that replaces the old one. This isn't true of the old models in question, which are no longer supported or recognized by GW.


(And it's more than half, since the print runs are over before the item goes on sale.)

Is it? There have been any number of people running Squat armies using Marine or Guard rules who might be inclined to disagree on just how important that is.

Except that's entirely dependent on their opponents being nice about it. I would refuse to play against a Squat player who tried to claim cover/LOS blocking based on the actual height of the model instead of counting it as being the same height as actual IG/marine models.

To be honest, given the scale discrepancies in their ranges since, well, forever, I very much doubt GW are even considering that sort of level of technicality when they create most new models. In most cases, models have been made bigger so that more detail can be crammed onto them, not because GW thought that regular Guardsmen would be hideously unbalanced unless they made them 3mm taller

Maybe for current models getting slight updates, but we're talking about a lot more than a 3mm difference here. For example, terminators on 25mm bases instead of 40mm bases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
It's like Old termies on small bases, legal as that's the bases that were supplied. Got a problem with it, I don't care cuz thems the rules

Could you provide a quote and page number (in the 6th edition rulebook) for the rule allowing you to use old bases even when the base size for the unit has changed?