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.

During the days of yore, when customization was rampant, WYSIWYG was the Prime Directive.

Now with (almost) every unit having a specific model, this isn't as necessary, unless you are breaking out some non-gw parts.

But how does this work when you simply have an outdated model?

Take the new Astartes Drop Pod, with its open doors and no guns...

Can you still field the old model, even though it's not exactly WYSIWYG and use them in Tournaments?

Yes, as long as the doors open so the footprint is more or less correct. The presence of a weapon can be ignored since it is now a non-option (all drop pods are unarmed). Anyone who wants to be pedantic about it should be smacked with a dreadsock. But check with your TO just in case, as some of them do have sticks up their butts about that kind of thing (same goes for any proxies or third-party/3d printed models).

As always, check with the TO.

Looking are reviews of the new drop pods, they are pretty close to the old ones. Not enough that a reasonable (IMHO) person should have an issue.

If it was something like the Avatar of Khane, it might be a little different. He got a major glow up in size. To the point I’d feel bad putting my old one down on the table with the new rules.

 Nevelon wrote:
As always, check with the TO.

Looking are reviews of the new drop pods, they are pretty close to the old ones. Not enough that a reasonable (IMHO) person should have an issue.

Is there a standard guide that TOs use for Tournaments stateside, or is it just "in the eyes of the beholder?"

 Nevelon wrote:

If it was something like the Avatar of Khane, it might be a little different. He got a major glow up in size. To the point I’d feel bad putting my old one down on the table with the new rules.

I've secretly wanted to get the dimensions for the new avatar, and then build a base for the original Avatar of Khaine (who might be shorter than Eldrad) and mount him so he'll be eye level with the new guy.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:


I've secretly wanted to get the dimensions for the new avatar, and then build a base for the original Avatar of Khaine (who might be shorter than Eldrad) and mount him so he'll be eye level with the new guy.

Oh, get the 2nd ed metal one and have him wear the original Avatar on it's hat! Is that tall enough?

Probably not.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Is there a standard guide that TOs use for Tournaments stateside, or is it just "in the eyes of the beholder?"

It's always at the discretion of the individual tournament organiser, but I very much doubt anyone's going to have an issue with which drop pod you're using. There's just not enough difference between them to be worth a fuss.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh, get the 2nd ed metal one and have him wear the original Avatar on it's hat! Is that tall enough?

Probably not.

3 old Avatars in a trenchcoat...?

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh, get the 2nd ed metal one and have him wear the original Avatar on it's hat! Is that tall enough?

Probably not.

3 old Avatars in a trenchcoat...?

That'd be amazing. Add some burned patches, bloody cuffs and a lil smoke coming out?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
As always, check with the TO.

Looking are reviews of the new drop pods, they are pretty close to the old ones. Not enough that a reasonable (IMHO) person should have an issue.

Is there a standard guide that TOs use for Tournaments stateside, or is it just "in the eyes of the beholder?"

 Nevelon wrote:

If it was something like the Avatar of Khane, it might be a little different. He got a major glow up in size. To the point I’d feel bad putting my old one down on the table with the new rules.

I've secretly wanted to get the dimensions for the new avatar, and then build a base for the original Avatar of Khaine (who might be shorter than Eldrad) and mount him so he'll be eye level with the new guy.

I know back in the say there were a few different tournament organizations/standards. But that was when 40k needed a little more work to make for a “fair” game. Basically a set of house rules to modify the core rules. I’m not sure if they still are active these days with GW taking a more active hand in balance. I’m a filthy casual, so just picked up bits of the conversation.

I had thought of doing up my old Nagash to match the new one with a huge base and some extras. Partially for the laugh of the whole situation. I could see the same with the Avatar. But I kinda want to get the new one because he’s just awesome looking.

 Nevelon wrote:

I had thought of doing up my old Nagash to match the new one with a huge base and some extras. Partially for the laugh of the whole situation. I could see the same with the Avatar. But I kinda want to get the new one because he’s just awesome looking.

I mean, yes, the new Nagash is fantastic... but I wouldn't want to try to actually transport it anywhere.

Give it a week and someone will design a 3d printable base so you can use your old drop pods with the doors closed on a magnificent tactical rock shaped to the exact shape and dimensions of the new drop pods footprint.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I had thought of doing up my old Nagash to match the new one with a huge base and some extras. Partially for the laugh of the whole situation. I could see the same with the Avatar. But I kinda want to get the new one because he’s just awesome looking.

I mean, yes, the new Nagash is fantastic... but I wouldn't want to try to actually transport it anywhere.

Peak swirly crap GW. So many cool models that make for horrible game peices.

To bring this back to the drop pods in the OP, the new ones look like they are going to be absolute nightmares to transport. Not because of fragile swirly junk, but doors fixed open and not that much shorter then the old pods? Massive footprint plus tall model? Ouch. The old ones where you could close the doors were bad enough. So much room in the case.

Of note, the new Drop Pod datasheet explicitly defines how the doors work and what parts of the model "count" in a way that works well for both the old and new sculpt.

 LunarSol wrote:
Of note, the new Drop Pod datasheet explicitly defines how the doors work and what parts of the model "count" in a way that works well for both the old and new sculpt.

That helps a lot for play. Counting the doors as part of the model gave them a massive zone of control.

Also the 0 OC will prevent some tricks.

I find it funny after all these years of Drop Pod foolishness that GW creates a new model with fixed doors down and promptly rules "the doors are not considered to be part of the model for gameplay purposes".

They do look better with the doors open, and honestly from a fluff POV they slam open the second it hit the battlefield anyway.

But once you start counting them for distance, it’s crazy. if you need to drop 9” away from everything (more if you want space for the troops to disembark) with that kind of footprint? On curent table sizes? Not going to happen.

Indeed, the doors should have always been explicitly ignored.

Better yet, from a purely game-focus POV, they should have been designed differently in the first place, in order to be more suitable for gameplay.

I always thought the doors should never have been a part of the model. They caused so many problems.

Now - How are you supposed to place this thing far enough away to deploy Marines outside of it, but not have the sit on the doors.

The datasheet explicitly allows both you and your opponent to put models on the doors. They simply do not count as part of the Drop Pod model.

Lathe Biosas wrote:I always thought the doors should never have been a part of the model. They caused so many problems.

Now - How are you supposed to place this thing far enough away to deploy Marines outside of it, but not have the sit on the doors.

alextroy wrote:The datasheet explicitly allows both you and your opponent to put models on the doors. They simply do not count as part of the Drop Pod model.

Quick and dirty deployment:
Measure the pod door 9” from nearest enemy. Set up squad between edge of doors and the hull. Standing on the doors, as allowed.

Glad I was wrong.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
During the days of yore, when customization was rampant, WYSIWYG was the Prime Directive.

Now with (almost) every unit having a specific model, this isn't as necessary, unless you are breaking out some non-gw parts.

But how does this work when you simply have an outdated model?

Take the new Astartes Drop Pod, with its open doors and no guns...

Can you still field the old model, even though it's not exactly WYSIWYG and use them in Tournaments?

So long as there is no clear advantage from a different size model/base size, I've never seen anyone kick off at a tournament over an older model.

An old doors-closed pod has the same footprint as the diagram on the new datasheet for what actually counts as the model in game, if you mock up a carboard template or whatever to sit it on when you deploy it so you can prove you are not gaining an advantage being able to deploy it in a narrow gap the new one wouldnt fit in no one will care.