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.

I got an old oop incubi in an eBay order I got and I was wondering how people would feel about them being used as incubi in games today. I know the pole arms arnt quite like the cool swords they have now but I was thinking it could do the same amount of damage. Would it be a proxy at that point?

There should be absolutely no problem with this. I use a combination of old and new incubi models.

Tbh, I doubt the average player would even be able to tell the difference. Most of their poses are the same and they don’t have different weapon load outs beyond the Demi-Klaive.

Old models don’t become obsolete unless you choose to change them out or GW no longer offers rules to support them.

I didn’t realize you were talking about the 3rd edition sculpts, still shouldn’t be a problem

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Old models don’t become obsolete unless you choose to change them out or GW no longer offers rules to support them.

That becomes a contentious issue when you are talking about some of the sculpts that have doubled in size over the years (Greater Daemons being the most recent example that I can think of)

@OP, I think they should be fine. Most people probably wouldn't even notice unless they had a side by side.

 Gorthor21 wrote:
I got an old oop incubi in an eBay order I got and I was wondering how people would feel about them being used as incubi in games today. I know the pole arms arnt quite like the cool swords they have now but I was thinking it could do the same amount of damage. Would it be a proxy at that point?

What a daft question. No, they're still Incubi. As long as Incubi are in the game they'll never be proxies of Incubi, just older versions of Incubi. And if you find an opponent who objects to models being used as what they actually are? Then you've found someone not worth playing against.

I think they'd be fine, they're still Incubi. The only old-school Incubi that would be an issue would be the ones with shredders/blasters since they no longer have those options.

It’s worth noting that when the newer metal incubi came out with the redesign of the Dark Eldar a Klaive had exactly the same rules as a punisher (the halberds) had before (+1S two-handed power weapon).

The 3rd Ed models are still clearly incubi and many of the same design cues are still clearly apparent. I was using one of the cloaked ones in that style (from Vect’s dais) right up until I got the new plastics and never once did someone object.

Apparently they changed the weapon as massive swords were considered more ‘warrior like’ than halberds.

I don’t think there would be any issue with using older models. It’s no different to using 2nd Ed Ork models, 3rd edition tau stealth suits or RT era space marines etc.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Apparently they changed the weapon as massive swords were considered more ‘warrior like’ than halberds.

Clearly a choice made by someone who doesn't understand how handy a halberd is as a weapon.

I wouldn't have any issue with anyone fielding older models, mostly because that's what 98% of my models are :p

Modelling for advantage doesn't really apply when you're using an official brad model, albeit an older one. A true WAAC player may complain but who needs them?

Thanks for all the answers everyone. I think I might have a go at them then.

Models are rarely an issue, the most contentious issue would be base size if thry are 25mm and new plastics are 32mm. I doubt the new ones at 32mm thought.
This is more because base size matters in CC due to the gamey rules for pile-in, consolidate and fall back. Easily fixed with base extenders or even new bases though.

Ice_can wrote:
Models are rarely an issue, the most contentious issue would be base size if thry are 25mm and new plastics are 32mm. I doubt the new ones at 32mm thought.
This is more because base size matters in CC due to the gamey rules for pile-in, consolidate and fall back. Easily fixed with base extenders or even new bases though.

The newest Incubi are on 28mm bases, so not really much of an issue.

The only time anyone could find issue is if the size difference was drastic, which is why abstract size values I always liked a bit more for visuals and why I imagine GW dislike it so as it can lead to issues on what is and isn't allowable.

These issues shouldn't be there for these models as they are pretty much the same size and set up aside from look of the weapons. I doubt you'd run into any issues.

The size differences people talk about being a thing are like the greater demons where say a great unclean one went from a slightly bigger demon prince to around the size of a baneblade. Most normal models won't ever have this problem.

Technically there is not a rule for base sizes, only some locals and some events has those rules.

A little rant

Honestly whilst I'm all for using the correct base size, with the general error level margin in real world measuring with a tape measure and the unit type, the difference between 25mm and 28mm in base size is almost negligible in practical gaming.

25mm to 32mm is a bigger difference is measurable within the games practicalities and can make a difference. It's over half a cm.



As the other said base size is really the only thing that you need worry about. It's not as if they've gone through changes like hte Greater Demons where the new ones are significantly larger and fully replace the old models (its not that bad for demons though because the old models are the same size as the demon princes so you can simply use them as a themed demon prince)

Its a grey area for sure, some units has been sold on multi different sizes just in 8th (tho most was from Index and not codex times). But point stands, there are even units that had 3 different base sizes. Some went to 32's but back to 25's, heck a Carnifex at one point in time had 3 different boxes all with 3 different base sizes. Then you have GSC pure stealers going from 25's to 32's back to 25's. Scourges comes with 32's or 25's depending on which warehouse ships what. Even some SM units are still being sold on 25mm's (Most of BA characters actually lol, Dante, Astorath, Lemartes, Gabriel Seth, etc..)

So when it that inconsistent there is a problem, and the players shouldn't have to pay for it unit GW fixes it.

Shouldn’t be a problem, as....

A) They can’t be mistaken for anything else
B) They retain the same shape and size as their replacements
C) They are Incubi.

The main issues occur when some units have had updates which altered their size.

Examples? Ork Warboss, Space Marine Dreadnought from Rogue Trader.

In those days, they were pretty small. Warboss was no bigger than the Boyz, and the Space Marine Dreadnought was short and slimmer.

These don’t meet the three criteria above, because their successors have notably increased in size. In modern 40k, that’s an advantage due to TLOS.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its a grey area for sure, some units has been sold on multi different sizes just in 8th (tho most was from Index and not codex times). But point stands, there are even units that had 3 different base sizes. Some went to 32's but back to 25's, heck a Carnifex at one point in time had 3 different boxes all with 3 different base sizes. Then you have GSC pure stealers going from 25's to 32's back to 25's. Scourges comes with 32's or 25's depending on which warehouse ships what. Even some SM units are still being sold on 25mm's (Most of BA characters actually lol, Dante, Astorath, Lemartes, Gabriel Seth, etc..)

So when it that inconsistent there is a problem, and the players shouldn't have to pay for it unit GW fixes it.

I actually asked about GW making a base size chart like AoS has and was told to email the suggestion to the rules team at 40kfaq@gwplc.com to request it as its a rules team thing. So I'd urge others to do the same - if more of us ask they'll see more demand and might make one. I think some of the 40K issue is because there's clearly a breakdown between 40K teams and manufacturing and the rules team. So you've got Killteam teams doing killteam boxes; then 40K central teams doing them and something like genestealers might have "boxes" now for 3 or 4 different "games" even though its the same model. So whilst in tehory the 40K team should be top dog in ensuring its all standard, it might be getting mixed up.

If we can push GW to unify base sizes like they have done for AoS then its all to benefit for us and even GW cause those with older armies will have a reference point to check and then order the right bases.

As long as you meet an events requirements for base size (if they want only modern sized bases, use just that), if anyone gets arsed about you using the original Incubi models? Let’s face it, you’re never, ever going to enjoy playing that opponent.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Technically there is not a rule for base sizes, only some locals and some events has those rules.

A little rant

Spoiler:

Some units it makes sense, like Abandon, he doubled in size. Incubi are literally the same size models. Also most DE players didn't buy the new incubi as it was a $200 box for crappy stuff added no one wanted, and now they are $55 for 5 models that are the same size as the old ones. Thats $11 per model for a infantry unit, wtf! My 20 Finecast and 10 metals are on 25 and staying on 25. I have played them (to test out new rules) in ITC events, not 1 person cared, even the TO said he would have done the same thing. I finally did get a new set, only b.c i'm also a collector, but only 5 guys, i'm not buying anymore.

Interestingly for this discussion, while the new plastics are significantly larger than the 5th Ed metals/finecast (to the extent that you could glue a 28mm base underneath and they’d be the same height) the 3rd Ed metals are almost exactly the same height as the plastics.

I’m similar to you though - I bought 5 metals in 5th and played with a mix of 5th Ed and 3rd Ed, then bought a couple of boxes of plastics to top up to 11 (for a choice of Klaivex weapons) and parts to turn into more Archons.