PDA

View Full Version : The Stunted Eldar Avatar....



Trench_Raider
02-04-2009, 02:38
Oh noes! It's yet another Trenchie WYSIWYG thread. But this one is different because I really don't think the nay-sayers will have a leg to stand on.

Short and sweet...What do you lot think about using the original Avatar miniature? (Aside from it's looks of course. I fully agree the more recent Avatar is amuch better looking model)
http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2093eldaravatrwarlks-h.htm

I can't see how anyone could legitimately complain. It's not a proxy or "counts as". It is what it is...and my the letter of the rules it's still legal. Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue ;) )

TR

insaniak
02-04-2009, 02:42
I can't see how anyone could legitimately complain.

If you're using an out of production model specifically to manipulate the rules, people will complain. What the rules say won't make a great deal of difference.

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 02:42
Allright, that's it! You're forcing me to break out the cardstock orky dread, aren't you?

Meri

Trench_Raider
02-04-2009, 02:50
If you're using an out of production model specifically to manipulate the rules, people will complain. What the rules say won't make a great deal of difference

That's not my purpose. With the exceptionof the vehicle models my entire Eldar army I'm working at the moment dates from 2nd edition or before. The old model I have on hand fits in.


Allright, that's it! You're forcing me to break out the cardstock orky dread, aren't you?


Hehehe...I for one would not complain. By the letter of the rules it's legal. But then by the letter of the rules alot of stuff that would really suprise many people is tourny legal.

TR

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 02:54
Yes you can, but doing that is a bit like entering the 'World's smallest doodle' competition, winning only proves how tiny you are. :p

I've seen people use all sorts of out of production models, from space marines to orks to eldar to guard. This is no different than using a beaky marine (which incidentally is smaller than a modern marine).

The old greater daemons were smaller as well, but people still use them.

GW says you can use old miniatures and even says you can use them on the bases they were supplied with, meaning the original avatar can be used in 40k and on a 25mm base, just as metal terminators can be.

Unless people want to start banning all oop models because they were smaller than they are now. Just because the avatar's size increased more dramatically in the next version in no way makes it more legitimate to ban; you'd have to create a subjective list of what body size % increase is 'acceptable' in oop miniatures because there is no official one.

The old plastic land raider is much smaller than the modern one, yet people still use it.

Hellebore

Trench_Raider
02-04-2009, 02:57
The old plastic land raider is much smaller than the modern one, yet people still use it.


eh...yes and no. I've got two of them and still use them al the time. They are smaller than the current model in length, but a bit taller.

But good points about not being able to ban older models just because they are a bit smaller. I fully agree.

TR

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 03:08
There are plenty of size issues from older models. Ork mega armour for example. People will ban players because they are using the $300 worth of mega armoured nobs they collected in the 90s?

What about Ghazkhull? His 2nd ed model is a lot smaller than his current one. People are still using the old character models of their fav special characters. Just because a new version was released doesn't mean we MUST use it. That gets into the programmed redundancy buy an army every year mentality of computers et al. Miniatures are collectibles and as such their collectors should not be forced to use the most recent models because the designers decided to change the models.

We would have to ban all models from the same era because they were all sculpted to the same style. Like say, half the warlock models, the wraithguard and all the phoenix lords on account of them being in '2nd ed' proportions.


Hellebore

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 03:14
While *legal*, in the interest of fair play I'd give him a big honkin' banner or something, and then let people draw LOS to (and allow myself to draw LOS from) the banner.

Meri

P.S. I use the old Ghazkull model as a 'nob in 'eavy armor' now, because he's too small to even be a mega-armored nob. *ALL* of my mega-armored nobs are from the '90s, and most of my orks are from the very early '90s, when you could buy 30 plastic orks for $20...

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 03:15
Another thing to remember is that in 4th edition this wouldn't be a problem, because the model's appearance and its rules were not as heavily tied together. The avatar was a monstrous creature and as such was Size 3. So it wouldn't have mattered at all (iirc the size of the base was also a mandatory size for certain sizes).

The supposedly more realistic 5th ed rules that conveniently ignore other 'realisms' actually punish people for creative modelling and fighting against older models that are smaller.

This would not have been anywhere near the problem it is here in 4th ed. Perhaps GW are trying to encourage the disposable mentality with their armies so you keep buying?



Hellebore

insaniak
02-04-2009, 03:19
The avatar was a monstrous creature and as such was Size 3. So it wouldn't have mattered at all (iirc the size of the base was also a mandatory size for certain sizes).

It wouldn't have mettered for LOS past Area Terrain or close combats.

The rest of the time, where you used true LOS, it would have had the same problems you will have now.


Personally, I don't have a problem with old models. But where they've changed drastically in size, as in this case, I'd prefer to see it made up for with some creative modeling... Meriwether's banner idea, or putting him on a big rock or somesuch, for the sake of fairness.

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 03:20
This would not have been anywhere near the problem it is here in 4th ed. Perhaps GW are trying to encourage the disposable mentality with their armies so you keep buying?

That seems a little consipiracy theorist to me!

Meri

devolutionary
02-04-2009, 03:24
Ahhh Trenchie, how I've missed you :D

But yes, I'm cool with using the old Avatar. Old models are always fun to see on the table top. The smaller base alone would make me happier, since it's just that little bit easier to stay out of his reach.

Trench_Raider
02-04-2009, 03:24
That seems a little consipiracy theorist to me!

Meri

That's certainly the mindset that GW has been pushing for quite some time. Anyone else recall that awful "40k revised" series of articles that apeared with the advent of 4th edition?

But that's a whole other subect...

TR

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 03:28
I'd be ok with it, though at first I would be a bit :wtf:.

But if I can allow kinder eggs killer kanz, i'll allow that.

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 03:31
That seems a little consipiracy theorist to me!

Meri

Well maybe, but it's a sound business tactic that has been making billions of dollars in other fields, why not this one? We are having a greater influx of 'disposable' armies these days, with people buying assembling painting and then selling an army to pay for their next one.

I'm a collector not a gamer, so I'm not a good customer to GW because I'm not always buying the latest thing to replace the old ones.

Magic The Gathering has a limit on the ages of cards iirc, so even if you buy a whole set of them, 5 years later you may not be able to use them again.

I can see GW in a few years going down that route, probably under the guise of WYSIWYG. It's only fair after all that your opponent knows exactly what you've got so you need to have the latest model versions in order to play.

Hellebore

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 03:36
I can see that happening in regards to a touney setting , for general play I doubt they would push it, though they could have it as a policy in the stores, though all that would do is make the older players with older models more fed up with GW.

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 03:41
I really, really, REALLY doubt you will ever see that as official policy, or even unofficial-but-pushed policy. The main reason why is that miniatures are tangible, durable goods. People expect to be able to use their tangible, durable goods until they break. Changing the rules _exclusively_ to force people to buy more stuff will anger and alienate insane customers like myself -- AND drive more kids (and/or their parents) away from the hobby.

I could be wrong, of course, and time will tell...

Meri

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 03:41
Yeah, lol I should have specified. GW isn't quite THAT powerful that they can send their space marines into your house and spit on you until you play their way....YET.

They could put little cameras in their models so they can film what models you are playing with and against, cataloguing all your heresies against GW the Emperor before sending purgation squads in...

EDIT: Anyone know how to do strikethrough text in in this? Cheers Lord Malorne!


Hellebore

Lord Malorne
02-04-2009, 03:51
[ /s] remove the space before /.

Good idea on the cameras... my [s]Black Templars *Ultramarines!!* have been acting funny lately...

Born Again
02-04-2009, 04:23
As long as you're not doing it purely to get an advantage, I'd be fine with it. In all honesty though, I think it'd be better suited as an Autarch.

Oh, and looking at the scan... "Doom that Wails" :rolleyes:? When did they realize "wailing doom" sounded so much cooler?

Occulto
02-04-2009, 04:44
It wouldn't have mettered for LOS past Area Terrain or close combats.

The rest of the time, where you used true LOS, it would have had the same problems you will have now.

Yup. Once again the "4th ed didn't use true LOS" myth is trotted out.


Personally, I don't have a problem with old models. But where they've changed drastically in size, as in this case, I'd prefer to see it made up for with some creative modeling... Meriwether's banner idea, or putting him on a big rock or somesuch, for the sake of fairness.

Exactly.

The Avatar in question is substantially smaller. In the interest of fairness, I would hope to see some attempt to redress any imbalance.

Unfortunately, when I faced one of these Avatars, the owning player was a real +++CENSORED+++ about it. He wasn't using it for nostalgia, pure game advantage - something he cheerfully admitted after the game. :rolleyes:

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 04:48
Well it depended on your terrain collection. I played 4th ed with nothing BUT area terrain so TLOS was very rarely ever used. I don't recall ever using that particular statement, only that Size Categories were friendly to model conversions and this particular avatar model, because it WAS. Unlike the LOS rules in 5th ed, which are NEVER EVER friendly to the opponent (due to LOS) nor the owner (due to social reasons brought on by LOS).

Not that 5th ed uses TLOS either, something about being able to shoot models you can't see, but the target unit only being able to draw LOS from the one model out in the open...

In my mind though, any rules that do not accommodate player conversions and the actual imagination that the hobby is supposed to be based on are not rules that I like.

Hellebore

FashaTheDog
02-04-2009, 06:09
Currently my Eldar need to be updated to be 5th edition compatible (Great Court of the Young King woth two Dire Avenger Squads and a Falcon), but I plan on eventually buying a Forge World Avatar and an Epic one to go with the regular and old one I have. Once there I will start with the current metal one and based on how he performs will depend upon which model I use in the next game; the Forge World one for excellent, 40 mm one for decent, the 25 mm for bad, and the Epic one for dying on turn 1.

Hellebore
02-04-2009, 06:29
->
Currently my Eldar need to be updated to be 5th edition compatible (Great Court of the Young King woth two Dire Avenger Squads and a Falcon), but I plan on eventually buying a Forge World Avatar and an Epic one to go with the regular and old one I have. Once there I will start with the current metal one and based on how he performs will depend upon which model I use in the next game; the Forge World one for excellent, 40 mm one for decent, the 25 mm for bad, and the Epic one for dying on turn 1.=win.

Hellebore

AndrewGPaul
02-04-2009, 08:17
With the exceptionof the vehicle models my entire Eldar army I'm working at the moment dates from 2nd edition or before. The old model I have on hand fits in.

Technically, so would the current Avatar. it's a 2nd edition model.

Having said that, go ahead and use it. All this whining about getting an "unfair" benefit gets tired. Just use some cool miniatures if you want. If it makes the Avatar harder to shoot, who cares? If it causes an issue, just use some shorter terrain.

AndrewGPaul
02-04-2009, 08:18
Oh, and looking at the scan... "Doom that Wails" :rolleyes:? When did they realize "wailing doom" sounded so much cooler?

Well, it doesn't.

Sleazy
02-04-2009, 08:21
Well Trenchie makes an interesting point but when he talks about his eldar being mainly 2nd ed I must point out that the current avatar was around in 2nd ed.

That said when I started making my current eldar army it was mainly RT sculpts so I used the original avatar and rebased him on a larger base to stop any concerns. Of course TLOS changed all that, I'm sure 99% of opponents wouldnt care but I didnt want anyone thinking I'm trying for an unfair avantage so I dug out a current avatar from by bitz box. The intention was to have 2 avatars with me so I can use the current one if ness. Now this bugger was missing his hair so I had to resculpt some, once I had finished I decided I really liked the result - I always thought the top know looked daft anyway.

Now I tend to just use the current larger one, the RT theme has been diluted a lot with FW goodies anyway.

solkan
02-04-2009, 09:32
Is there really that much difference in size between the small base Avatar and the medium base Avatar? I would think most of the size difference would go away if you took the small base and mounted it on a medium base. It's not like you're supposed to shoot at banners and top knots, right?

From comparing the $8 blister pack greater daemons and the current boxed sets, it's not that much of a size difference if you ignore differences in wingspans. The one with the most contrast is the bloodthirster, but even there aside from the wingspan it seems like less than a centimeter of height and arm length difference. Throw in an extra base width or two, and that height difference starts going away...

Heck, I have both first and second edition Tzeentch flamers, and both of those models are a base width shorter and somehow manage to just look tiny compared to the current figures. It seems that the major offender for volume would be rogue trader Chaos dreadnaughts versus the current we-decided-to-reuse-the-Warlord-titan-chassis refrigerator dreadnaughts. Would you begrudge someone bringing out the old crab-claw and plasma cannon dreadnaughts?

Poseidal
02-04-2009, 09:51
I wouldn't mind. Old models are full of character and you can always discuss with your opponent.

Also, I prefer The Doom That Wails to the current wording. It's more poetic to my ears.

IJW
02-04-2009, 10:18
What about Ghazkhull? His 2nd ed model is a lot smaller than his current one.
His 2nd ed. model doesn't exist. ;)
His 1st ed. model, on the other hand, isn't wearing Mega Armour so wouldn't be even remotely WYSIWYG.


Well maybe, but it's a sound business tactic that has been making billions of dollars in other fields, why not this one?
[...]
Magic The Gathering has a limit on the ages of cards iirc, so even if you buy a whole set of them, 5 years later you may not be able to use them again.
For reference, GW tried this before MtG even existed let alone before they (edit - 'they' being WotC) introduced obsolescence, at least in terms of what models you were allowed to use within GW stores. The plan didn't survive contact with market forces...


Oh, and looking at the scan... "Doom that Wails" :rolleyes:? When did they realize "wailing doom" sounded so much cooler?
I can't say I see a lot of difference in how good they sound.

Axis
02-04-2009, 10:53
You can use it, i'd just count it as S and T 4 since it is so puny :P

Latro_
02-04-2009, 11:40
hang on, isn't the old old avatar only a bit smaller then the old avatar (FW being the newest and HUGE).

Now i just looked at the new codex's avatar stats + rules I'm think if the old model is small it's gonna be a bit silly using it but i still woudlent have a problem.

IJW
02-04-2009, 12:02
The old Avatar is between 1/2 and 1/3 the bulk of the current metal Avatar, about the same as the Phoenix Lords.

Axis - the 'puny' Avatar is the one that could potentially end up with S10 and T10... :D

It's worth remembering that the Avatar has always varied in size and power between the different Craftworlds, and in it's original WD127 incarnation the Doom That Wails was carried into the Avatar's throne room by the Young King - 'just' an Exarch.

Cool_Mint
02-04-2009, 12:09
I've got one of those old "mini-me" Avatars. I was wondering why they sell for so much on Ebay and now I know!

x-esiv-4c
02-04-2009, 12:16
Not only to I agree with using the old Avatar but would support any effort to see older models put back on the table, be in Squat, Slaan or even Zoat. I wouldn't want to meet the person who would bar you from using the older models.

The Ape
02-04-2009, 12:21
I some times wonder Trenchie if you start these, admittedly amusing, threads just to try and entice some one into an argument or to provoke a reaction ;) And then get disappointed when people agree with you?

Personally, I wouldn't be bothered which avatar you used as I plan to dig out my old 2nd ed nids which I suspect are smaller than the current ones...

As for GW trying to force people to change and update armies - the best way for them to do that is bring out better models-if I think a new release is better than I'll get it, but not if it sucks e.g. 7th ed Empire state troops are pants, but the general is a sweet model...

Irisado
02-04-2009, 12:28
I have no problem with the original Rogue Trader Avatar model being used.

I've compared my Rogue Trader and second edition Avatars side by side, and there isn't as big a size difference as I was expecting. It's funny how the mind plays tricks on you when it comes to remembering the relative sizes of figures.


Axis - the 'puny' Avatar is the one that could potentially end up with S10 and T10... :D

So very true :).


It's worth remembering that the Avatar has always varied in size and power between the different Craftworlds, and in it's original WD127 incarnation the Doom That Wails was carried into the Avatar's throne room by the Young King - 'just' an Exarch.

I had forgotten about the variation in the size of Avatars, I shall have to look that section up again in my copy of WD127, in order to reacquaint myself with that piece of background.

IJW
02-04-2009, 12:43
Hmm, looks like I mis-remembered size variations being mentioned, but the uniqueness of each Avatar was the basis for the randomised profile.

Sir_Turalyon
02-04-2009, 12:45
If using one, I'd probably put it on higher base and had no problems with oponent claiming LOS in situations when he clearly would have one to bulkier model.

But no, it's 100% legal, I'd let you use it as it is.

Lord Damocles
02-04-2009, 12:46
If you put him on a raised scenic 40mm base so that he was closer to the height and base size of the standard, larger, Avatar I'd be fine.

...otherwise, claiming that you're not doing it for an in-game advantage very quickly becomes a moot point when you're in a position to claim a cover save when you wouldn't normally be able to.

Irisado
02-04-2009, 13:03
Hmm, looks like I mis-remembered size variations being mentioned, but the uniqueness of each Avatar was the basis for the randomised profile.

I've checked in WD127, and I can't find any references to size differences with Avatars either, so I think you are right that the differences would come solely from the old randomly generated profile.

Of course, in terms of background, it may be possible to contend that an Avatar with lower strength and toughness values would be smaller than an Avatar with higher strength and toughness values. Of course this all refers back to an out of date rule set, but the principal could still be applied in purely background terms.

IJW
02-04-2009, 13:04
...otherwise, claiming that you're not doing it for an in-game advantage very quickly becomes a moot point when you're in a position to claim a cover save when you wouldn't normally be able to.
In my case, the original one is assembled and quite well painted (I think he's in my 'Ye Olde Figure Collection' log somewhere), while the 'new' one is in pieces and needs stripping of a crappy eBay paint job. Are you going to insist that I'm using the old one for in-game advantage rather than looking better? :eyebrows:

Note - this is a hypothetical point, given that I don't generally use an Avatar anyway...

Meriwether
02-04-2009, 13:12
Are you going to insist that I'm using the old one for in-game advantage rather than looking better? :eyebrows:

Yes. But only because it's _you_, IJW. :p ;)

Meri

Lord Damocles
02-04-2009, 13:12
Are you going to insist that I'm using the old one for in-game advantage rather than looking better?
I wouldn't insist that anyone was necessarily doing anything for an in-game advantage. My point was/is however, that using the older, smaller, Avatar does give an advantage over the current model.

Corrode
02-04-2009, 13:24
I have no problem with the original Rogue Trader Avatar model being used.

I've compared my Rogue Trader and second edition Avatars side by side, and there isn't as big a size difference as I was expecting. It's funny how the mind plays tricks on you when it comes to remembering the relative sizes of figures.

Is there any chance we could get a picture of this? I've not played Eldar since I was much smaller and stupider, and I always forget just how small GW models really are. The side-by-side comparison might be helpful.

Irisado
02-04-2009, 13:32
Is there any chance we could get a picture of this? I've not played Eldar since I was much smaller and stupider, and I always forget just how small GW models really are. The side-by-side comparison might be helpful.

Not from me, sadly, unless somebody rushed around here with a digital camera in the next few minutes (I don't have one I'm afraid).

IJW
02-04-2009, 13:42
Yes. But only because it's _you_, IJW.
Yep, renowned powergamer that I am, with Squats, footslogging Eldar and a Plague Marine force that contains no Lashes and no heavy weapons other than four Missile Launchers. ;)
Although I have had one comment about my Squat Heavy Weapon Trikes having a smaller profile than the Ork Warbuggies that they are representing. :(


I wouldn't insist that anyone was necessarily doing anything for an in-game advantage. My point was/is however, that using the older, smaller, Avatar does give an advantage over the current model.
OK, looks like I misread your tone. "claiming that you're not doing it for an in-game advantage very quickly becomes a moot point" sounded perilously close to saying that in-game advantage had to be the underlying reason for using the older model.


Is there any chance we could get a picture of this?
Attached, but it's a crappy snap.

Bob Hunk
02-04-2009, 13:47
I'd be fine with the old Avatar, although as others have said I think it would look best on a scenic 40mm base. :)

Corrode
02-04-2009, 13:54
Looking at the picture, the tip of the old Avatar's spear is about level with the head of the new Avatar. For simplicity's sake it might be worth just saying 'hey, measure LoS to the speartip'.

Thanks for the picture IJW. The old Avatar is a rather cool model.

Latro_
02-04-2009, 14:21
whoa they are quite different in size arn't they!

Hlokk
02-04-2009, 15:09
I can't see how anyone could legitimately complain. It's not a proxy or "counts as". It is what it is...and my the letter of the rules it's still legal. Ugly and stunted, but legal. (and much more capable of taking advantage of cover, thus lending it more survivability...but that's another issue ;) )

TR
Trenchie, your right, no one should be able to complain, but you know they will, people love to whinge, especially at you :p

I'd say go for it, if your really prepared to field such an ugly model. Personally, third thing on my shopping list is the forgeworld avatar with a spear.

AngryAngel
02-04-2009, 17:08
I wouldn't give a rats rear end with model that is legal people wanted to use. Hell I don't even care if its a GW model so long as it is similar in size, and if it looks better then the GW version, more power to um.

I have more to worry about during a game then a somewhat smaller, yet still legal model. Like rolling so crappy I can't believe it every time I pick up the dice. Really a 4+ cover save isn't going to make or break the game for/against me.

However, if you are a loathsome soul seeking to exploit the smaller models for in game benefit only, you are a foul and dirty soul and I hope the forces of evil devour you whole and leave you wasted within the eye of terror.

Sister_Sin
02-04-2009, 18:50
I just got my FW Avatar with the spear and it is an awesome model.

I still have the little Avatar too although it's packed away and has been for a looong time. I don't see any good reason for folk to argue over it, but of course, they will. Either ignore it and move on or use a different model; your choice and yours alone.

Next on my list; Scorpion II and a Cobra. No idea when I'll manage those. LOL

Sister Sin

Sleazy
02-04-2009, 18:55
Aw Sister_Sin. I noticed you were in Sunderland and thought about challenging your eldar to a game, then I noticed the MA bit and realised you are not in fact a Mackem.

monopeludo
02-04-2009, 19:45
I'd love to play against old miniatures army. It's really nice to see diferent miniatures from time to time. I don't care if it's smaller because I just play for fun right now. If the new codex unexplicably (sometimes this strange things happen :D) has zoats in it, I'd begin a Tyranid army just to field my old telepaths.

Azriel45
02-04-2009, 20:41
I see no problem. Although I know a lot of people that would the complain the entire game.
The main reasons i see no problem is that old models are still usable. You could always chalk it up to fluff in that all craftworlds avatars are different. And look at the size difference in the current GW avatar compared to the FW one.

AndrewGPaul
02-04-2009, 21:49
I remember when that little Avatar came out. White Dwarf made a big thing about how big a model it was. :)

boogle
02-04-2009, 21:53
I'd be fne with it as i play for fun, and winning is the bonus

AmBlam
02-04-2009, 22:49
I'd want legal documents signed by GW saying it was legal.

LonelyPath
02-04-2009, 23:07
Legally you can use any miniature so long as it's on the base it's supplied with, but I generally go a little further and give the minis bases equal in size to their current counterparts. So if I was to use that Avatar from yesteryear (when was it? 1990 or 1991?) I would give it a larger base, then no one can ever complain about the mini coz it's legal even in tournaments with having the correct base size.

In another instance I rebased all my old terminators to have 40mm bases to fit the current format.

darker4308
03-04-2009, 01:37
I love the old avatar. I have to say that. Size though doesn't matter that much unless your doing TLOS shooting and he is actually properly hidden behind something. I mean the guy has a +4 invuln. So it's not as likely to become an issue as it would with some other questionable old minis. Also.....I kinda like the new big base. You get more lateral movement and the guy is H2H based. Big base is really something of an advantage.

Now with my jetlocks .... I pulled my dark eldar bike bases off and shoved them onto the SS bikes so i can get more jetlocks into close combat. I say this as cheese due to the fact that the spears and autauch that I snagged the bikes from use big flying bases, I really would like to hear a ruling as base size can dramatically effect combat.

darker4308
03-04-2009, 01:40
Just so we are clear ... the jetlocks have never had a fixed size but the autauch and spears are now fixed at big flying base

noobzor
03-04-2009, 03:54
that is cool. i want that avatar :(

rottahn
03-04-2009, 04:14
i dont mind OOP minis, i just mind it when people model their eldar wraithlords in the prone position like snipers to they are UBERhard to see. a guy in my neck of the woods has 3 of them converted to the prone position, and i always make sure the tourney organiser knows what kind of shinanegans he is pulling and make sure all of his opponents know about it as well(yes im a tattler; i dont like him at all)

personally i think that avatar is awesome and righteous!
i would definately like to play against it.(and own one) :)

Sister_Sin
03-04-2009, 04:19
Wraithlords prone? O-o Never occurred to me. I rather like the one of it walking with the bright lance like a rifle, that one is cool. Prone...somehow that just doesn't work for me.

I guess it all depends on the reason behind using an OOP model, smaller model, or one modeled rather differently. For myself, I generally don't care what my opponent does but since tournaments and such aren't something I play in, that's unsurprising.

Sister Sin