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.

Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull".
And let's not get started on ornaments.

But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.

 Jidmah wrote:
Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull".
And let's not get started on ornaments.

But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.

Not even guard are excluded from it. I remember arguments over whether a Valkyrie's wings counted as "hull" or not, which mattered a lot when blast templates were a thing. The rules even said that "wings" don't count, but there was a reasonable argument to be made that it was referring to something like decorative wings on a chaos character, not a major structural component on a vehicle, and so RAI the Valkyrie's wings should be a valid target even if they aren't by strict RAW. Or you could argue that in addition to being RAW that the wings don't count the Valkyrie also shouldn't be impossible to hide behind terrain or miss with a blast template.

(Which then brings up the question of whether it's modeling for advantage to do the popular helicopter conversion where the wings are removed entirely!)

 Jidmah wrote:
Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull".
And let's not get started on ornaments.

But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.

I'd prefer clearer rules. However, as I stated, in well over 20 years of playing 40k this has never been a problem, under either set of rules. That's playing against literally every army that's been released in that time.

I'm not blaming YMDC for unclear rules. I'm pointing out it's a cesspit of one-upmanship and purely theoretical argumentation for its own sake, very briefly punctuated by genuine rules questions with useful answers.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.

Guard are an important part of the fluff, are responsible for the majority of the Imperium's wars, and have a clear design concept that doesn't require stealing the spotlight from other factions.

Gold marines are a negligible part of the fluff, have such absurdly tiny numbers that they might as well not exist, and are just marines +1 that try to steal the "elite army of heavy infantry" concept from every other color of space marines.

One of these things is not like the other, no matter how much salty gold marine players try to pretend otherwise.

Imperial Guard are your army bob, that is the ONLY differance.

Slipspace wrote:
I'd prefer clearer rules. However, as I stated, in well over 20 years of playing 40k this has never been a problem, under either set of rules. That's playing against literally every army that's been released in that time.

I literally have a hand-written list of questions to clarify with my opponent ahead of a game penned in the cover of my 4th edition ork codex. I'd post a picture but it's in German and not even I can read all of it anymore because my handwriting is horrible
Quite a few of those questions were about whether certain things were considered hull or not. Just because you don't regularly get into a shouting fight over something, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Just from the top of my head, which of the following things would you consider legal targets for shooting according to that 30k rule:
- kopta blades of a kopta
- Thrakka's roar of mork (his quad gun)
- Thrakka's klaw
- a warbosses' attack squig
- a deff rolla
- exhaust pipes on a BW
- exhaust pipes on a deff dread
- the jaws of a squigosaur
- a squig on a stick held by an ork (yes, that's a thing)
- a gretchin hanging off a buggy
- a burna's fuel tank
- the tail of a trygon
- a lictor's claws

If you need to stop and think about even one item on that list, the rule doesn't work as well as the current one in 9th does despite its flaws in regards to immersion and modeling.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

There is an immense difference between not taking a perfectly optimized netlist and having to negotiate rule changes.

Which is what you admitted to do. Demanding painted models for example, that's not a rule.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Very hard because it looks stupid. They're obviously tanks with significant weapons, not flimsy transports with a token light machine gun. Proxying is not a solution here.

And yet, even youtubers with thousands of views, like the example I provided, think it is. What looks stupid for you might look awesome for others. So again, it might not be a solution for you. It is for others.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


Now, I'd kindly ask you to stop making baseless assumption and talking gak about people.

I won't reply point by point, just clarify one thing. When I said I blame the players for "list of bad behaviours" I didn't mean I blame YOU for "list of bad behaviours" just that blaming the players might be legit. For some people it isn't, and when they have no arguments they throw down "Oh yeah, you're blaming the players". Maybe not in your specific case, but when I see the "you're blaming the players" argument I usually get heated . Yes, there are a lot of behaviours I don't like and that unfortunately they're becoming common. I feel free to criticize such behaviours nonetheless.

In none of my posts I intended to offend you personally, if I did or you got the impression that I did, I'm sorry .

I also try to be very clear that opinions are just opinions, so in no way I do consider my point of view as the truth or how everybody should think. Things are subjective, different contexts matter and different opinions are still legit opinions to hear, even if we disagree. People should always have it in mind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
... demanding the minimum table size...

Don't be so naive. That was entirely by design.

The decision to put a minimum size that was different from what was the most common table size was definitely by design. People demanding the min size because otherwise they feel their game is not "official" anymore is just dumb behaviour.

And to clairfy, I love the min size since a 4x6 wouldn't fit on my table at home and I could finally buy a 44x60 battle mat that nicely fits. It doesn't mean IT HAS to be min size or the game is not valid. I was criticizing this kind of mentality.

BrianDavion wrote:
Imperial Guard are your army bob, that is the ONLY differance.

Other than the differences I gave you in the post you quoted, sure, it's the only difference. Like it or not gold marines should never have been retconned into a tabletop army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Which is what you admitted to do. Demanding painted models for example, that's not a rule.

What's your point? Whether or not I (or anyone else) play by some platonic ideal of Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ there is still the simple fact that less than perfect optimization is not the same thing as having to convince people to accept house rules. I accept that by refusing to play against unpainted models I am limiting the pool of possible opponents I have available, by merely taking a less than perfectly optimized list I do no such thing.

And yet, even youtubers with thousands of views, like the example I provided, think it is. What looks stupid for you might look awesome for others. So again, it might not be a solution for you. It is for others.

Popularity doesn't guarantee taste. Lots of people get views for ugly and stupid armies, especially when the focus is competitive play where you might as well use cardboard boxes to proxy your netlist. And no matter how many times it appears on a youtube video proxying a LRBT as a paper-thin transport vehicle with minimal weapons is a stupid looking proxy. And it is not an option for anyone who cares about the story of the game or the models as anything other than slightly fancier cardboard tokens in the tabletop equivalent of a competitive e-sport.

Taste is completely subjective, that's the point. There's no such thing as universal good taste, especially for something like a tabletop game, since a huge portion of its appeal is based on aesthetics.

You can find possibly perfect fluffy explanations for a looted LRBT that counts as a trukk: first it's a looted wagon which means it was destroyed or damaged before salvaging it, so having a "degraded" profile than the original battle tank is reasonable. And about the cannon, someone might argue that it ran out of ammo before the upcoming battle. So it's modelled but the player doesn't pay the points for that and he doesn't use it. It's just pure aesthetics for the game purposes, and generates no confusion since the model can't possibly have anything else other than the basic weapon. Besides, it's orks stuff and orks stuff works bad or doesn't work all the time . This is perfectly reasonable for those who like the story of the game or the models, it's people who want 40k to be the equivalent of an e-sport that would demand the exact original models since every differences in size in terms of fractions of millimiters matter for them.

And about painted models the point is you're also trying to convince people to accept (your) house rules. So demanding painted models or asking to tone up/down the lists or accept other some house rules are the exact same thing conceptwise. Something requires a longer talk maybe but in each case one player is just trying to convince a possible opponent to accept his/her own version of the game.

Because, as you also said, there is no Official Warhammer 40k. Therefore what works for someone might not work for others.

 Blackie wrote:
You can find possibly perfect fluffy explanations for a looted LRBT that counts as a trukk: first it's a looted wagon which means it was destroyed or damaged before salvaging it, so having a "degraded" profile than the original battle tank is reasonable. And about the cannon, someone might argue that it ran out of ammo before the upcoming battle.

Nope. You aren't starting from a fluff concept and asking how best to represent it on the table, you're starting from a proxy and inventing weak rationalizations for how it can be made to fit some other unit's rules. You can do this in some groups but it's no different from using a cardboard box with "trukk" written on it.

and generates no confusion since the model can't possibly have anything else other than the basic weapon.

How does it create no confusion when the model looks nothing like the unit it is being proxied as? If you put the LRBT next to a trukk it's very obvious that they are not the same thing, and the LRBT doesn't look any closer to a trukk than any other ork vehicle. You're completely ignoring WYSIWYG and expecting your opponent to keep track of which thing you proxied your model as.

This is perfectly reasonable for those who like the story of the game or the models, it's people who want 40k to be the equivalent of an e-sport that would demand the exact original models since every differences in size in terms of fractions of millimiters matter for them.

Lolwut. No. This is not about fractions of a millimeter for competitive e-sport reasons like "but your bases are smaller so you can get an extra model into engagement range in this one specific configuration", it's about the models representing the story. A proxy that looks nothing like the unit it is claiming to be is fine for e-sport players since the models are just markers on the table. It looks stupid as hell for those of us who care about the narrative because no matter how many absurd rationalizations you invent a looted LRBT is not a trukk. You're no longer creating a lore-accurate 40k battle and you might as well use cardboard boxes and cheap toys for your e-sport.

And about painted models the point is you're also trying to convince people to accept (your) house rules. So demanding painted models or asking to tone up/down the lists or accept other some house rules are the exact same thing conceptwise. Something requires a longer talk maybe but in each case one player is just trying to convince a possible opponent to accept his/her own version of the game.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that taking a less than optimal list doesn't require agreement between players? If I want to take a Macharius (a very bad unit with a cool model) I don't have to ask for permission or negotiate a house rule, I just put the Macharius in my list and hope that the rest of my list is good enough to make up for ~350 points of my total being taken up by a bad unit. If I want to negotiate a rule that banners/wings/etc don't count for LOS I have to convince my opponent to agree to the change. The two cases are not at all the same.

We outright ignored the new LoS rule from 8th and continued with the old one - never had a problem.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Nope. You aren't starting from a fluff concept and asking how best to represent it on the table, you're starting from a proxy and inventing weak rationalizations for how it can be made to fit some other unit's rules. You can do this in some groups but it's no different from using a cardboard box with "trukk" written on it.

How does it create no confusion when the model looks nothing like the unit it is being proxied as? If you put the LRBT next to a trukk it's very obvious that they are not the same thing, and the LRBT doesn't look any closer to a trukk than any other ork vehicle. You're completely ignoring WYSIWYG and expecting your opponent to keep track of which thing you proxied your model as.

This is not about fractions of a millimeter for competitive e-sport reasons like "but your bases are smaller so you can get an extra model into engagement range in this one specific configuration", it's about the models representing the story. A proxy that looks nothing like the unit it is claiming to be is fine for e-sport players since the models are just markers on the table. It looks stupid as hell for those of us who care about the narrative because no matter how many absurd rationalizations you invent a looted LRBT is not a trukk. You're no longer creating a lore-accurate 40k battle and you might as well use cardboard boxes and cheap toys for your e-sport.

Look, this is the last official datasheet of the looted wagon, before he became obsolete and food for this thread:



As you can see it's a looted leman russ with the profile and point cost that match the trukk stats. Trukk was AV10/10/10, open topped, had a transport capacity and cost 30 points. Leman russ was AV14/13/10, not open topped, no transport capacity and 150 points. The looted wagon was basically a trukk, not a battle tank. And yet GW used the leman russ model to represent it. They actually made it look even sturdier than the original model by adding the reinforfed ram from the battle wagon kit. This isn't me inventing anything, it's official GW work.

It's definitely 100% lore accurate. A looted wagon and a trukk are basically the same thing, except for the weapons' options. But the profile was almost identical. And the opponent doesn't need to keep track of anything, since there's no possible other units that might be an acceptable count as for that model.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that taking a less than optimal list doesn't require agreement between players? If I want to take a Macharius (a very bad unit with a cool model) I don't have to ask for permission or negotiate a house rule, I just put the Macharius in my list and hope that the rest of my list is good enough to make up for ~350 points of my total being taken up by a bad unit. If I want to negotiate a rule that banners/wings/etc don't count for LOS I have to convince my opponent to agree to the change. The two cases are not at all the same.

But you want to negotiate that the opponent has to bring painted models. Which is the same as negotiating an house rule, you have to convince him in both cases. That's what I was saying.

 Blackie wrote:
Look, this is the last official datasheet of the looted wagon, before he became obsolete and food for this thread:

A datasheet which, IIRC, was criticized at the time for being stupid as hell and going blatantly against the fluff. And it's still stupid as hell now. One previous mistake by GW doesn't excuse continued bad decisions.

And the opponent doesn't need to keep track of anything, since there's no possible other units that might be an acceptable count as for that model.

Why not? You've already declared that shape doesn't matter, size doesn't matter, weapons don't matter, and armor doesn't matter. Literally nothing about the LRBT model is being considered in evaluating it as a suitable proxy so why isn't it an equally valid proxy for every single vehicle in the ork codex?

But you want to negotiate that the opponent has to bring painted models. Which is the same as negotiating an house rule, you have to convince him in both cases. That's what I was saying.

Why do you keep going on about painted models when it has nothing to do with what I said? The comparison was between modifying the LOS rules (house rules required) and bringing a sub-optimal unit (no house rules required), my refusal to play a game against unpainted models has nothing to do with it. So please stop this pathetic attempt at a "BOTH SIDES LOL" argument.

(And I don't negotiate anything. If someone asks to play a game with me and doesn't have a fully painted army I do not play the game, end of discussion.)

Aren't looted wagons in CA18?
Edit: actually, Warzone Octarius 2 has current 9th rules for a Looted Wagon.

 Blndmage wrote:
Aren't looted wagons in CA18?

Technically yes, but those rules are not allowed in matched play and have not been updated to match the current ork codex (or any other changes since 2018). You could technically update them yourself and use them if you're willing to allow house rules, but at that point you might as well house rule your own datasheets from scratch.

Edit: actually, Warzone Octarius 2 has current 9th rules for a Looted Wagon.

Only in Crusade. Their datasheet is tied into the ork Crusade mechanics and can't be used without them. So that's not really useful unless you're playing Crusade and get far enough in your campaign to build up scrap points and create one.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

A datasheet which, IIRC, was criticized at the time for being stupid as hell and going blatantly against the fluff. And it's still stupid as hell now. One previous mistake by GW doesn't excuse continued bad decisions.

By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Why not? You've already declared that shape doesn't matter, size doesn't matter, weapons don't matter, and armor doesn't matter. Literally nothing about the LRBT model is being considered in evaluating it as a suitable proxy so why isn't it an equally valid proxy for every single vehicle in the ork codex?

Never said that. I said that sizes should be roughly the same, that differences in mm don't matter. And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Why do you keep going on about painted models when it has nothing to do with what I said? The comparison was between modifying the LOS rules (house rules required) and bringing a sub-optimal unit (no house rules required), my refusal to play a game against unpainted models has nothing to do with it. So please stop this pathetic attempt at a "BOTH SIDES LOL" argument.

(And I don't negotiate anything. If someone asks to play a game with me and doesn't have a fully painted army I do not play the game, end of discussion.)

The comparison between you refusing to play a game against unpainted models and people asking to negotiate for changing some rules was to underline that you also demand house rules, your house rules, to play the game. The discussion might be shorter, but the concept is the same. The concept is that you demand playing your own version of the game to your possible opponents.

 Blackie wrote:
By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.

Yes, I will absolutely give you recordings of past offline conversations with friends who play/played orks, and long forgotten forum posts on the subject. Please wait patiently for your evidence.

And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.

People can read a list but showing me a list at the start of the game doesn't help me remember that this proxy is a trukk, this other proxy is a battelwagon, etc, when none of them look anything like the units they're being proxied as. It is not fair to give your opponent the burden of keeping track of what your proxies are.

The comparison between you refusing to play a game against unpainted models and people asking to negotiate for changing some rules was to underline that you also demand house rules, your house rules, to play the game. The discussion might be shorter, but the concept is the same. The concept is that you demand playing your own version of the game to your possible opponents.

And, once again, that comparison is not relevant. The original comment was comparing house rules to taking a sub-optimal unit in your list, stop dishonestly trying to substitute in unrelated stuff about whether or not I accept unpainted models.

It's also a stupid argument to make, as I never claimed to play some morally superior Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ with no house rules. The fact that I or anyone else may use house rules does not change the fact that modifying the LOS rules to ignore banners/wings/etc is a house rule that must be negotiated, while taking a sub-optimal unit in your list is not.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.

Yes, I will absolutely give you recordings of past offline conversations with friends who play/played orks, and long forgotten forum posts on the subject. Please wait patiently for your evidence.

I also don't remember ever reading or hearing anything like that. If anything, the comments were about how appropriately Orky it was. You were also very quick to dismiss other people's personal testimony as unsubstantiated in the recent PL thread, yet now you're quite happy to assert your own as fact. Nice double standard.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.

People can read a list but showing me a list at the start of the game doesn't help me remember that this proxy is a trukk, this other proxy is a battelwagon, etc, when none of them look anything like the units they're being proxied as. It is not fair to give your opponent the burden of keeping track of what your proxies are.

There's definitely a degree if give and take and understanding required with proxying. I think there's pretty broad agreement that the most basic requirement is not to confuse your opponent. That's obviously a subjective thing, but in most cases I've seen played and discussed, using the same model to represent two different things is usually where a line is drawn. If your army is full of weird proxies that don't really match anything in size or function then it's also likely to be rejected, but a single proxy that's close enough (which is a personal evaluation unique to each opponent) is often not a problem.

Ultimately it's always opponent's discretion whether a proxied model is allowed so it's never going to be a perfect solution to obsolete models, but a lot of the arguments over specific cases here seem pretty ridiculous to me. If an opponent can't accept a single Salamander as a Chimera, for example, I'm probably going to be a little reluctant to play them anyway, as I've found that sort of attitude is often paired with other attitudes that make the game more hassle than it's worth.

 Blackie wrote:
Look, this is the last official datasheet of the looted wagon, before he became obsolete and food for this thread:

The official three 9th edition datasheets for looted wagons can be found in Warzone Octarius: Critical Mass, page 92-95.

Looted wagons are not obsolete by any standard.

They're Crusade only now, so for people who don't play Crusade they're definitely obsolete.

I don't play Crusade and there's no way I can field the same looted wagon that was an official unit during 3rd-7th, it has to be a count as.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

There's definitely a degree if give and take and understanding required with proxying. I think there's pretty broad agreement that the most basic requirement is not to confuse your opponent. That's obviously a subjective thing, but in most cases I've seen played and discussed, using the same model to represent two different things is usually where a line is drawn. If your army is full of weird proxies that don't really match anything in size or function then it's also likely to be rejected, but a single proxy that's close enough (which is a personal evaluation unique to each opponent) is often not a problem.

Agree, the point is there's no official rules that demand using the exact models that GW sell. Requiring the current models, bases, etc... are house rules that are meant for tournaments, where there are a few referees every X players and they need to eliminate arguments and discussion as much as possible.

That degree is entirely subjective. For me anything is reasonable as long as there is no confusion. A leman russ for example can only be a trukk, as all the other vehicles are either walkers, have bases, or are twice the size. I can't possibly mistake that russ for something else. Of course I won't field a looted leman russ as a trukk and another looted leman russ as a battlewagon or a FW big trakk. In that case there would be confusion, both players have to constantly remember what is what.

 Blackie wrote:
They're Crusade only now, so for people who don't play Crusade they're definitely obsolete.

I don't play Crusade and there's no way I can field the same looted wagon that was an official unit during 3rd-7th, it has to be a count as.

So, you can't play a datasheet with PL printed on it because the "official" rules tell you to not do it?

 Blackie wrote:
Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.

 Blackie wrote:
Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer

 Blackie wrote:
Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament.

Is this you?

OP here.
I really was not trying to start an argument thread about GW practices. I was just interested if other players had models they can't use any more, and what they did with them. This means Ork models, since I have a lot of OBE models, and non-Ork models, since I am less familiar with those. Regards to all.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
They're Crusade only now, so for people who don't play Crusade they're definitely obsolete.

I don't play Crusade and there's no way I can field the same looted wagon that was an official unit during 3rd-7th, it has to be a count as.

So, you can't play a datasheet with PL printed on it because the "official" rules tell you to not do it?

 Blackie wrote:
Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.

 Blackie wrote:
Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer

 Blackie wrote:
Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament.

Is this you?

Yeah, absolutely. I tend to play with the actual rules and try to avoid house rules, whenever possible. I think the real only house rule I use is the one that ignores the 10VPs for painted stuff. There's no rule that demands official models or official base sizes, etc... so playing with older bases or conversions, legends, larger tables, different formats than 2000 points, no strict WYSIWYG... it's all 100% RAW gaming.

Changing a unit's datasheet is a complete different beast instead. A kind of house rule I don't use, although I totally respect someone that does it.

I'm against the mentality that demands some specific official standards as the only way to play when those are just unwritten rules to facilitate playing random pick up games with no to little degree of negotiations/arguments, but there are no official standards in 40k. That's the mental prison I was talking about. I can't understand demanding features/standards that are not actual rules as the only official and validated way to play 40k. There's nothing official in something that isn't actually printed in the rulebooks or from the additional online rules that GW releases periodically.

Besides, regardless of what my gaming experience is, the looted wagon is an osbolete model by some standards at least, that's an undisputable fact :

There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.

You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.

You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.

Ehm...no.

It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.

Using crusade stuff in a matched play game requires negotiations, pre game talks or the opponent understanding, you can't invent rules and datasheets or take them from other game formats and then claiming it's all good, you need house rules to run that stuff. Which is perfectly fine and a legit solution to the "What do you do with obsolete models"? about this specific obsolete model of course. The conversion from PL to points is all you need (and this is something you absolutely need to change if you play with points), and takes no time.

But at that point running the model as a "counts as" is IMHO easier/simpler for both players and doesn't contradict any actual rules. There might be some pre game talk as well since it's not an official model so if you think that using house rules in order to play more WYSIWYG looking models is better than using proxies/counts as go for it; as I said it's a legit option to consider when we're talking about friendly/casual games. I simply prefer to stick with actual rules/profiles. But I'd definitely allow that option to an opponent since I'm not strictly against playing with house rules.

I complain about people who DEMAND things that aren't actual rules, while I'm doing no such things.

The short answer is...it's my table/house, my friends and family, and we stick to open war.

Or as Warhammer RPG puts it. Remember the golden rule, if something is fun, use it. If a rule makes the game less fun...don't use it.

So yes, second edition orks and Gorkamorka orks are still boyz. 2nd edition gretchin are still grots. The old third edition trukk is still a trukk with a single big shoota. (So are the old trakks). Haven't used the second edition buggy with the heavy skorcha on it in 9th yet. (But seriously, why not just make it a trukk with a skorcha mounted on it?)

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.

You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.

Ehm...no.

It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.

Wrong. There is literally no rule preventing you from just running the three datasheets in any other PL based mode. The rules just tell you how to run them in a crusade.

You yourself claimed that models are never obsolete because you can just go back to 3rd and play them anyways or play 3000 point games. At the same time, you are claiming that models are obsolete because you limit yourself to matched play.

Apparently your stance on this topic in general seems to be "I am right about everything and everyone else is wrong" and all your arguments are justification for not changing your mind, no matter how much your stances contradict each other. You are not having a discussion you are proclaiming your own opinions as undeniable facts.

Bottom line, looted wagons are, as a matter of fact, not obsolete, you merely have decided for yourself to no longer field them.

 Dekskull wrote:
Haven't used the second edition buggy with the heavy skorcha on it in 9th yet. (But seriously, why not just make it a trukk with a skorcha mounted on it?)

Because via Legends I have access to the data sheet for the actual Skorcha.
Wich is exactly what a buggy/trike with a heavy skorcha is....

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.

You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.

Ehm...no.

It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.

Wrong. There is literally no rule preventing you from just running the three datasheets in any other PL based mode. The rules just tell you how to run them in a crusade.

You yourself claimed that models are never obsolete because you can just go back to 3rd and play them anyways or play 3000 point games. At the same time, you are claiming that models are obsolete because you limit yourself to matched play.

Apparently your stance on this topic in general seems to be "I am right about everything and everyone else is wrong" and all your arguments are justification for not changing your mind, no matter how much your stances contradict each other. You are not having a discussion you are proclaiming your own opinions as undeniable facts.

Bottom line, looted wagons are, as a matter of fact, not obsolete, you merely have decided for yourself to no longer field them.

Please Jidmah, don't be obtuse, I know you aren't. Everytime I talk and propose solutions in this thread I always add that they are subjective and entirely depend on players' standards and what they expect from the game. There is no universal solution or cure to the "problem".

I play 3rd edition, don't care about official models, only play matched, etc.... so the solution I've proposed reflect that and I've clearly explained that, I've simply put a context to explain how and why I consider those ideas as solutions to the problem. I've explicitly said that those solutions work for me but not for someone who have very different standards, especially someone who only wants to play with official models. I've also said that looted wagons are perfectly fine for those who play crusade. I simply don't. And for those who don't as well, that's a solution that doesn't work. It's all there, in my previous posts. I'm not Bob who says something doesn't work because it goes against his standards.

It's you that are actually saying "I'm right about everything". You seem so motivated to win an argument on the internet that you either missed most of my lines entirely or deliberately ignored/changed them to prove your point. But there's no real argument to prove here or minds to change, I'm not saying you're wrong. Or entirely wrong, you're just missing the whole point of my posts, even if I've explained it pretty clearly and multiple times. To avoid additional confusion, I'll do it once again: there's no universal solution, what to do with obsolete models depends entirely on what a player expects from the game, his/her meta and his/her standards.

It's perfectly fine to have a solution that works for you and not for me, or viceversa.

They become display models.
The old Shadowsun resin model has been replaced by the new, bigger plastic one. But it is still a nicely painted model so it's sitting in my display cabinet.
Both Shadowsun models are sitting there together, almost like in the "you vs the girl he told you not to worry about" meme.