While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?

Hey

I wouldnt say its MFA, since you havent altered the model in any outside fashion.

Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

While it's technically MFA, it's not a big deal as long as you remember the fact the sponsons can't shoot past the armor line. Kinda interesting too how the description of the model says you can build the sponsons in the front or back (also, there are examples in the codex of it in both positions. They obviously didn't see it as a big deal...)

Also, I can't see how that would look good. I mean....they just look...better in the back

EDIT 3?: Actually, most of the pictures in the codex show the LR with the sponsons in the front. In the models section the Ultra ones are the only ones with the sponsons in the back. The Sallies one has it in the front, and all the drawings show them in the front

It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

 insaniak wrote:
It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

Then the codex just has pretty pictures of converted models (which are not legal RAW and depend on your opponent's consent). What matters is what the instructions for assembling the model tell you, and apparently they don't give you a choice about where to put the sponsons.

The GW website has the godhammer and crusader with rear mounted sponsons and the redeemer with forward mounted sponsons.

Personally I don't really care.

If it were a proscribed setup, then it would have been easy to design the kit with slightly different apertures to prevent it.

Anyone crying MFA over what, a possible extra 1, perhaps 2" is probably not going to give you a fun game, so it will be the least of your worries.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

Then the codex just has pretty pictures of converted models (which are not legal RAW and depend on your opponent's consent). What matters is what the instructions for assembling the model tell you, and apparently they don't give you a choice about where to put the sponsons.

At that points it odd. The Chaos Landraider has you put them in the front, I believe the Godhammer LR variant has them in the front, and the Crusader/Redeemer has them in the back (that's usually how it's shown in the fluff pictures too, the sponsons are different based on variant)

GW has never had a problem with either way, and it's always been optional. Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist. MFA is a term made up by players to combat things people do on purpose to make their model better in game. Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses). At that point, if someone started complaining about that I would honestly pack up and not play them. The game just wouldn't be fun at that point, I could feel it.

I tend to see Lascannons mounted on either panel (usually back), while flamers and bolters are usually forward

The cover of the Crusader/Redeemer instructions has front-mounted sponsons on the Redeemer. There'll be people that call it MFA, but really it's only like a 2 inch difference.

I've heard of people mounting both sponsons on a single side of a Landraider. I call that MFA, but only because it looks stupid when I imagine it.

To be clear: I don't actually own any Land Raiders, so I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the OP is correct and the instructions do not include an option to mount the guns in the front position. If you do have permission in the instructions then my argument does not apply.

 washout77 wrote:
Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist.

You're right. RAW conversions of any kind are not allowed, and you need to agree with your opponent to make a house rule allowing them. "MFA" exists to define a certain kind of conversion that few people will accept, compared to the aesthetic-only conversions that most people do accept.

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

So then they're MFD when they put them on the back.

 Peregrine wrote:

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

You need that explained?

Really?

Beyond the sheer pedantry of quibbling over what, even in your example, is a very minor difference.

What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

What if they did it because it makes logical sense to mount a short range weapon towards the front, without any thought of how it would make to it in game?

What if they built it in 5th, where the disembark rules were different, and if you built it in the way you are suggesting you could end up with your own troops fouling your firing lanes once they got out?

I write this owning two Land Raider Redeemers, one of which has sponsons front, one of which has sponsons rear.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

The only way you could even be considered to be TFG by MFA is by putting both sponsons on the SAME SIDE! Other than that you're good to go.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

Exactly. There is no rule that permits you to modify the standard model, therefore conversions are not permitted. If you want to use them you need to agree with your opponent to include a house rule, and that rarely includes allowing conversions that people feel are MFA.

 azreal13 wrote:
What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

Then they can count it as being in the rear position and measure appropriately. If it is done purely for aesthetic reasons they should have no problem with this.

What if they built it in 5th, where the disembark rules were different, and if you built it in the way you are suggesting you could end up with your own troops fouling your firing lanes once they got out?

Then it's definitely MFA, just for different reasons. You're still altering the model so that you gain an advantage rules-wise, the only difference is that the intent is to gain clear firing lanes rather than extra range.

 Peregrine wrote:
How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target.

Unless the target is behind the tank.

Or beside it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

Then they can count it as being in the rear position and measure appropriately. If it is done purely for aesthetic reasons they should have no problem with this.

So you'd prefer guesswork? Strikes me as the sort of thing that would make you get upset.

It doesn't matter what you would "consider it".

The instructions that come with the model tell you to build it a certain way. If you build it ANY OTHER WAY you re breaking the rules. Positioning the guns further forward on the vehicle is CLEARLY MFA. Even if the difference is EXTREMELY minor, the difference still exists.

I would not have any problem with it if someone showed up with it modeled that way (and clearly GW doesn't see the problem, as they have theirs modeled both ways), but I can see how people would.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be clear: I don't actually own any Land Raiders, so I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the OP is correct and the instructions do not include an option to mount the guns in the front position. If you do have permission in the instructions then my argument does not apply.

 washout77 wrote:
Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist.

You're right. RAW conversions of any kind are not allowed, and you need to agree with your opponent to make a house rule allowing them. "MFA" exists to define a certain kind of conversion that few people will accept, compared to the aesthetic-only conversions that most people do accept.

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

Then Peregrine found out that the instructions for the Land Raider Redeemer tell you to put the Flamestorm Cannons at the front... And his argument became invalid.

If you are a rules lawyer like the above poster then they should go as follows

Land Raider - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Redeemer - Sponsons at the front.
Land Raider Crusader - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Achilles - Sponsons at the front.
Land Raider Helios - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Prometheus - Sponsons at the back.

Fairly sure it's all a storm in a teacup anyway. Unless they've changed the LR instructions recently, I'm reasonably certain that they had it listed as option on the instructions... little dotted line running from the sponson part to both hatchways in the assembly diagram.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
It doesn't matter what you would "consider it".

The instructions that come with the model tell you to build it a certain way. If you build it ANY OTHER WAY you re breaking the rules. Positioning the guns further forward on the vehicle is CLEARLY MFA. Even if the difference is EXTREMELY minor, the difference still exists.

I would not have any problem with it if someone showed up with it modeled that way (and clearly GW doesn't see the problem, as they have theirs modeled both ways), but I can see how people would.

Actually, it matters very much what I would consider it, as this is a situation that isn't accounted for in the rules, so it would come down to opponent's permission.

Frankly, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but anyone who gets bogged down in the minutiae of the game to the point of making a thing out of this isn't likely to be someone I would continue to play.

ARBITRARY USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS.

I believe the instructions have the lascannons and hurricane bolters in the back position, and the flamestrorm in the front. That is how I run my land raiders, but I have the guns all magnetized, so if anyone ever complained about it, I could just as easily switch it back.
Never had this come up really, but have definitely seen some MFA. Most common one I see is modifications to skimmer/jetbike height via the clear plastic stand. Saw a squad of necron destroyers a guy ran set up with three sets of changeable mounts; one the standard height, one really high, and one so low they were almost touching the base.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no rule that permits you to modify the standard model, therefore conversions are not permitted. If you want to use them you need to agree with your opponent to include a house rule, and that rarely includes allowing conversions that people feel are MFA.

Actually if you want to take that route, there are no rules telling you how to paint or assemble your models at all in the rules.

Conversions, painting, model assembly etc are simply not covered in the rules at all. MFA is a player convention and not a rules convention. Nothing says you can have the sponsons on different sides, nothing at all telling you the position of the sponsons in the rules.

Bottom line, put them in either position.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

You're right. But one of the conventional house rules for allowing conversions is that you have to be willing to count it as the standard model if there's any dispute over it.

Actually if you want to take that route, there are no rules telling you how to paint or assemble your models at all in the rules.

It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

You're right. But one of the conventional house rules for allowing conversions is that you have to be willing to count it as the standard model if there's any dispute over it.

Right House rule...

It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

Indeed they do, but no actual rules in the BRB telling you to follow those instructions.

All the pictures I've seen of the redeemer have the sponsons on the front, so I go with that. Also, when I bought my crusader it was the old one with metal sponsons...I can't find the pic right now but the cover of the box (and GW's website) had a black templars crusader with hurricane sponsons on the front, so I did that. I usually go off the front of the box.

For those who aren't familiar with the model, you can either put a door or a sponson on either the front or the back side openings on the landraider, both the pieces fit (aka no conversion required). I went with the cover of the box for mine.

Furthermore, it makes logical sense for the flamethrowers to be oriented forward for greater effect, rather than roasting the sides of your tank.

I don't think this qualifies as modeling for advantage, personally.

I think that either method is acceptable, since I haven't ever seen a written rule that says it has to be one way or the other. This is different than, say, modeling a dreadnought stretching his arm way out in order to extend the range on his flamer. I think either position of the sponsons has been conventionally acceptable.

Apparently this is a very polarizing issue though.

What it is, is a non-issue that people are digging their heels in about for some reason. I have mine modeled to the front and have never had one person complain about it. No T.O. from Adepticon to The Bay Area Open will give you a second glance for that either. There are bigger issues than this to worry about.

 cvtuttle wrote:
What it is, is a non-issue that people are digging their heels in about for some reason. I have mine modeled to the front and have never had one person complain about it. No T.O. from Adepticon to The Bay Area Open will give you a second glance for that either. There are bigger issues than this to worry about.

Not only is it a non issue but the people who are making an issue out of it are wrong...

This whole argument is pretty rediculous nonsense. While I would find acceptable in YMDC (because we have to argue RAW) It seems absurd to argue as such in general. Conversions are what make this game much more interesting than Warmachine or other games where conversions are minor to non-existant. Changing where the sponsons are in relation to the doors being called MFA would have me leaving the game...And I don't even play Space Marines of any flavor.

The sheer number of times this actually would play out as an advantage would be something like 1 in 100 games, and never all that disturbing really. A sponson flamer rarely even targets a forward facing model, more like sides of the tank. (who puts flamers on a LR anyways? In my meta a LR wont make it that far into the opponents deployment, and if the opponent gets that close, its generally with a crapton of melta)

So peregrine, your saying that if I choose to model my Ork Trukks in any way other than by the instructions (even though it could be dimensionally the same in every way) this is wrong and against the rules in some way? Sorry but I would hate to play against you.

Paitryn wrote:
So peregrine, your saying that if I choose to model my Ork Trukks in any way other than by the instructions (even though it could be dimensionally the same in every way) this is wrong and against the rules in some way? Sorry but I would hate to play against you.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Conversions are not permitted RAW, so using them depends on convincing your opponents to allow it. If you are a reasonable person and do it just to make a cool model without gaining any rules advantage (or agree to forfeit any potential advantage and count it as being the size/shape of the standard model) then any reasonable person will allow it without any problems. If, on the other hand, you "convert" the model to gain an advantage (longer weapon range, better door placement, whatever) and insist on keeping that advantage then any reasonable person would be entirely justified in refusing to allow it.

Well since the book encourages conversions, point me to where the RAW states its Illegal to do so? Not that the BRB has not ever contradicted itself, but I do not think there is an entry that states that the model must be built exactly as given. Otherwise there are plenty of units that have rules in their codex, but can never be played. (in other words your saying that models that require conversions to even exist are illegal)

I think your confusing converting with WYSIWYG or something. the book mentions building models with the appropriate gear, but also mentions "counts as" modeling as well being allowed.

and again the 2" adjustment isn't enough of an advantage to cry foul on MFA. can't quite reach with premeasure? well looks like its a few more inches forward and POTMS for me....

I would understand if this were a case like modeling a tervigon to be short enough to get cover, but this is just absurd.

and you think this is bad? I have a 2nd edition ork dred thats made out of cardboard. its by your definition a legal model that came with its supplied 25mm base. its side armor is a paper thin strip. better yet how bout my buddys RT edtion SM dreads? not much taller than a termie, so 25% cover is more than easy to achieve. And that in my book is worse than a 2" adjustment. but you cant call MFA since its a legal GW provided model.....

Paitryn wrote:
Well since the book encourages conversions, point me to where the RAW states its Illegal to do so?

The rules never give you permission to use anything but the standard model. So, just like I can't just remove your entire army as casualties and win (after all, there's no rule saying I can't), you can't use conversions without a specific agreement to add them to the game.

And, again, this is normally not an issue. Any reasonable person will allow aesthetic conversions. But there is no obligation at all to let you change weapon positions to gain an advantage.

and again the 2" adjustment isn't enough of an advantage to cry foul on MFA. can't quite reach with premeasure? well looks like its a few more inches forward and POTMS for me....

Unless even your maximum movement distance won't get you into range.

 Peregrine wrote:


It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

And why are these instructions any more relevant than the modelling section in the rulebook or various pictures in GW publications.


To OP: You can assemble it either way.

 Crimson wrote:
And why are these instructions any more relevant than the modelling section in the rulebook or various pictures in GW publications.

Because they are instructions. The pictures are not instructions, they just show off pretty pictures of what various artists have done.

To be honest, the whole MFA thing is a load of cack.

I've had someone I was playing out of pure sour grapes tell me I was cheating and modelling for advantage because I didn't glue my Vendetta to its flight stand, therefore retained the ability to pitch the nose up and down slightly and shoot a model on the ground within 24" when he tried to argue that it had a minimum range because of the model.

The instructions don't ever say to glue the valkyrie to the base. Then again, I guess you could say I was modelling for advantage when I glued lascannons to a valkyrie in the first place. *shrugs* It's all really rather pathetic.

No, this wasn't even in 6th. It wasn't a flyer. It was just a fast skimmer and the guy was trying to pull this cack on me because he couldn't be bothered to actually think.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because they are instructions. The pictures are not instructions, they just show off pretty pictures of what various artists have done.

Modelling section has a lot of instructions how to convert your models. Now what?

Wow, I had no idea this would be so polarizing.

My personal situation: I play BA, I bought the standard LC/HB LR. I want to use the Hurricane bolters and scratchbuild twin linked assault cannons to have an alternate pattern setup. The weapons sponsons stay snugly fit when placed inside the chassis, so no need for magnets or glue. I would however like to just glue in the back doors and be done with it.

Where I could see potential for an issue: DA LR with hurricane bolters in the front and standard of devastation. Now you are getting 4 x 6 twin linked bolter shots, with 2 inches of extra range as opposed to only 2 x 6 twin linked bolter shots. Not a huge deal and its very situational. I don't mind being a competative player and I wouldn't hesitate to bring 3 vendettas to the field, I do not want to be construed as TFG or MFA though.

I only have the instructions for the standard model so I cannt speak to the other variants. Usually there would be an ! with arrows pointing to multiple build options (exist in almost every other kit) but there aren't for this kit. I did think that it was poor design to have your marines exiting a tank infront of two twin linked lascannons blaring away but hey, it's GW right.

Anyway I am really just looking for a convientient way to model my tank and not have extra bits that need to be magnetized. I will eventually build flamesstorm cannons also so I will have all three options available.

Lets look at this Forge World tank:



It is intended to be used as standard Land Raider and it has its weapons mounted in front. In fact, it is impossible to mount them in any other way.

Maybe we should ban Forge World models as modelling-for-advantage. What you think Peregrine?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
And why are these instructions any more relevant than the modelling section in the rulebook or various pictures in GW publications.

Because they are instructions. The pictures are not instructions, they just show off pretty pictures of what various artists have done.

It's pretty obvious no one here agrees with you, why are you still trying to convince everyone of something that they aren't going to do any different.

In any situation, the "rules" (instructions) make it optional. Kinda funny, it puts the flamers in the front of the tank like it would make logical sense to do. It depends on what kit you are building. No TO has ever mentioned that the players LR is MFA and he needs to measure from the back, nor have I have seen a player make any mention of it until now. I usually agree with you on many aspects, like FW, but I tend to think myself pretty neutral in these debates.

I side with the people who say this is a non-issue, because it is. There are much more powerful arguments that need to be made, and where to put the LR sponsons isn't one of them

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

Correct. You're opening a can of worms if you do so...you're supposed to model your minis just as you're told to. I don't let my Wraiths lie flat on the ground to get better LOS blocking either although I could.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

It's not MFA, if you actually looked at the LR instructions, the crusader and redeemer model them forward (or at least at one time the crusader did). GW has pictures with them modeled forward, and from a pure safety perspective only a moron would want to get out in front of a giant sometimes automated gun. I modeled all mine forward because I putting them back is truly just a dumb decision.

To further muddy the waters, the redeemer is pictured on GW's website modeled forward. The Crusader is pictured modeled back. The original LR Crusader Box with the BT LR is pictured modeled forward. Forgeworld LR's are modeled forward. Seems to me its owners choice.

Best part about the internet nothing ever goes away Original LR Crusader box.

https://www.google.com/search?q=land+raider+crusader+box&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=m5d&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tuc5UeK3OofX2QXdpoDIDA&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=922#imgrc=ocQ4ZzvbcbvSwM%3A%3BWupeKQkr7WPhiM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.ebayimg.com%252Ft%252Fspace-marine-land-raider-crusader-older-box-nib-%252F00%252Fs%252FMTIwMFgxNjAw%252F%2524T2eC16VHJHYE9nzpeDFwBQlznd68O!~~60_35.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcgi.ebay.com%252Fspace-marine-land-raider-crusader-older-box-nib_W0QQitemZ121013516563QQcmdZViewItemQQssPageNameZRSS%253AB%253ASRCH%253AUS%253A101%3B300%3B225

It doesn't matter at all. I have a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer kit and i saw examples in the instructions with the hurricane bolters in back and the flamers in the front. It really doesn't matter where the doors/sponsons placed, because if you put the turrets first, then you lose some of your charge range, but if you place the doors first, then you lose weapon range, which for the flamers is crucial.

 ace101 wrote:
It doesn't matter at all. I have a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer kit and i saw examples in the instructions with the hurricane bolters in back and the flamers in the front. It really doesn't matter where the doors/sponsons placed, because if you put the turrets first, then you lose some of your charge range, but if you place the doors first, then you lose weapon range, which for the flamers is crucial.

In most cases wouldn't people measure charge range from the central assault ramp?

Dare I ask where people place the multimelta as I have seen that in both of the cupolas on the tank, fore and aft.

The argument is not (and since the beginning of the thread) has never been about Land Raiders specifically. It's about modifying your models to operate in a way other than the instructions intended you to do. Some LRs instructions tell you to put them forward, and some LR instructions tell you to put them in the back. You have to follow the instructions that came with the model!

Yes, putting the sponsons forward will more than likely NOT have a dramatic impact on any game, and no, no one is ever going to call you out on it and make a fuss (because frankly, making a fuss about it in a game would be ridiculous) but that is not the point of the argument, and it is not the point of the thread! People need to understand that Conversions and "counts-as" are not *strictly* legal. It just comes as understood that no one has a problem with it, and that before each game there is an unstated house rule or unstated agreement that allows you to use them.

Not that I (or anyone I know) ever would, but at tournaments a player is within his rights to simply not accept the use of your conversions, because they are not citadel models built as the instructions told you to do.

OK, the MFA arguements, and someone said ti earlier, is a load of total bull....

First: Sponsons have a specific LoS - they can only see about 90 degrees. So if you move them forward 2", you are losing 2 inches of side shooting. I would have no issue with the farther forward facing, I can get out of its LoF easier now.

Second: Anyone who says that you have to model the minis exactly as they are in the instructions - I would hope that you never do nice bases, cause even one piece of cork gives you better LoS and that is not fair; oh, that scout model is supposed to lay down but you want him kneeling, sorry - your squad has to have the exact configuation that comes in the one box; ad infinitum...

In order to MFA, you have to do it so that there is NO drawbacks for modeling it that way. That is EXTREMELY hard: oh, you had the daemon's head on a two inch tentacle straight up: well, that increases the amount that needs to be hidden for cover, makes it easier for my guys to see it, etc; You custom build a trick that is 1/3 bigger, well, it is that much harder to get cover; etc.

Honestly, if I spent a ton of time making an army that I liked the way it looked and someone threw a fit thinking that the Heavy Weapons team that is made to look like they are on a rocky cliff and are 1" taller, I would play it exactly as they want and them never play it again....If you are going to demand that I play it as 'it SHOULD be' - so will you...and if you are belligerent, I will leave, or in a tournament, make it hell for you too.......though I would prob just take the loss...

This is a frickin GAME....it is meant to have fun. The rules are added to give order, not to spend 1/2 the game arguing over something like MFA or if the model is 20% or 25% concealed......

 Amaraxis wrote:

This is a frickin GAME....it is meant to have fun. The rules are added to give order, not to spend 1/2 the game arguing over something like MFA or if the model is 20% or 25% concealed......

You are right, but that is not why this forum exists. This YMDC is NOT for the "beer and pretzels -- I just want to unwind with a relaxing game" type of people, this forum is for hashing out the rules EXACTLY as they are written for the tournament and competitive style of play. Interpreting the rules in such a way so as we'll have the most fun is not why we're here, and in fact RAW can sometimes be decidedly UN-fun, but that's not the point. The rules exist; and outside of friendly games they have to be followed.

Cheesedoodler wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:

This is a frickin GAME....it is meant to have fun. The rules are added to give order, not to spend 1/2 the game arguing over something like MFA or if the model is 20% or 25% concealed......

You are right, but that is not why this forum exists. This YMDC is NOT for the "beer and pretzels -- I just want to unwind with a relaxing game" type of people, this forum is for hashing out the rules EXACTLY as they are written for the tournament and competitive style of play. Interpreting the rules in such a way so as we'll have the most fun is not why we're here, and in fact RAW can sometimes be decidedly UN-fun, but that's not the point. The rules exist; and outside of friendly games they have to be followed.

This thread isn't in YMDC

 azreal13 wrote:

Cheesedoodler wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:

This is a frickin GAME....it is meant to have fun. The rules are added to give order, not to spend 1/2 the game arguing over something like MFA or if the model is 20% or 25% concealed......

You are right, but that is not why this forum exists. This YMDC is NOT for the "beer and pretzels -- I just want to unwind with a relaxing game" type of people, this forum is for hashing out the rules EXACTLY as they are written for the tournament and competitive style of play. Interpreting the rules in such a way so as we'll have the most fun is not why we're here, and in fact RAW can sometimes be decidedly UN-fun, but that's not the point. The rules exist; and outside of friendly games they have to be followed.

This thread isn't in YMDC

But should be... Modeling things like the company shows them (consistantly) is not MFA or being TFG... complaining about it is being TFG.

Yea, my standard landraider has it's sponsons on the front because I think it looks better.

The only time I've heard cries of MFA was when an ork played used a "looted" landraider as a battlewagon simply to increase his KFF range.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

No you don't I always put mine at the front as it makes more sense. Also Land Raider Redeemers ALWAYS have the sponsons at the front.





See there it is it is not MFA.

 Amaraxis wrote:

In order to MFA, you have to do it so that there is NO drawbacks for modeling it that way. That is EXTREMELY hard: oh, you had the daemon's head on a two inch tentacle straight up: well, that increases the amount that needs to be hidden for cover, makes it easier for my guys to see it, etc; You custom build a trick that is 1/3 bigger, well, it is that much harder to get cover; etc.

This right here folks. If you want to cry MFA, you have to find no clear disadvantages. 2" gain? also a 2" loss from side shooting (where a flamer would even matter)

Cheesedoodler wrote:
You have to follow the instructions that came with the model!

Citation needed because I can not find this in the BRB.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

You're right. But one of the conventional house rules for allowing conversions is that you have to be willing to count it as the standard model if there's any dispute over it.

Actually if you want to take that route, there are no rules telling you how to paint or assemble your models at all in the rules.

It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

Well not how to paint them, in your system all models should be unpainted. Most game developers give their reader a general level of intelligence and understanding so don't feel the need to give rules for construction and painting. Seeing as GW actively advertise and highlight conversions it should be perfectly clear that conversions are acceptable (including pages of space in the rulebook devoted to hobbying).

Now I may be simple minded, but I hate to ask why some people go to such lengths to claim that you need to assemble a model in a certain way, and to be honest. Who actually would refuse to play someone if their LR had the guns mounted at the back or front? Seriously if this is such a huge problem I think people may need to get out more.

On topic : If you ask me it maters not, front or back is just a mater of personal taste I suppose.

The main conclusion I have drawn from this thread is that although I thought Sheldon Cooper was a fictional character, it turns out I was wrong.

Exalted, Fifty.

I thank you. I was quite pleased with it.

If we went by Peregrine's rather narrow assertion on the rules of modelling, no Ork player could ever run a deffrolla wagon, or vehicle rokkit launchas, or a Killcannon mount on their vehicles. vehicle lobbas would also be a no- no, as would boarding planks on BW's, or wrecking balls..

There are sprues and upgrade parts produced by GW for all these bits and bobs, but no instruction manual on where to stick them. About 70% of the upgrades for BW's aren't provided on the BW sprue or covered in the instructions.

Possibly because the folks at GW recognise that we aren't fething idiots, and can figure out where they are supposed to go on our own.

Which would also bring up the point, how much red does a red paint job have for a red paint job to count as red? Find that one in the construction diagram

 Trondheim wrote:
Now I may be simple minded, but I hate to ask why some people go to such lengths to claim that you need to assemble a model in a certain way, and to be honest. Who actually would refuse to play someone if their LR had the guns mounted at the back or front? Seriously if this is such a huge problem I think people may need to get out more.

On topic : If you ask me it maters not, front or back is just a mater of personal taste I suppose.

This. I see this a lot in rules arguments and model arguments (usually model arguments). The classic internet tough guy syndrome. People act all tough and debate this on the internet, but in real life wouldn't actually do anything about it (except maybe vent about it on the internet later)

I've seen it both ways. It makes sense for them to be in front, after all like you say, who wants to embark/disembark in front of those guns?!

I don't think it provides an unreasonable advantage, as it's an option provided by GW. Like others have said, anyone that whines over 1-2 inches isn't going to be fun to play with anyway. They're probably just not very confident in their skills and list.

This doesn't even count as a conversion. I imagine the same applies for Rhinos with the turret positioned more towards the front too.

The only MFA that I'd be concerned with is something that could DRAMATICALLY change the possible outcome of a game, which as far as I can see, won't.

Complaining about it would be extremely unreasonable and nitpicky I think. I have a pretty down to earth view on things like this and legitimate conversions. If there's no real effect on gameplay, what difference could it make? Part of this hobby is using imagination! All my side sponsons will be to the front once mine come in.

these people who are complaining about sponsons being mounted up, when that is cleary the way to do it for some models...


are my guardsmen converted to be death cult assasins modelling for advantage as well?

after all, the 15$ a pop metal figs, of which there are only two poses, only come with swords,

and here I am putting axes and maces on the death cult assasins

is that going to shatter the game for you as well?

easysauce wrote:
these people who are complaining about sponsons being mounted up, when that is cleary the way to do it for some models...


are my guardsmen converted to be death cult assasins modelling for advantage as well?

after all, the 15$ a pop metal figs, of which there are only two poses, only come with swords,

and here I am putting axes and maces on the death cult assasins

is that going to shatter the game for you as well?

Totally, because you MFA and it isn't stated in the BRB that you are allowed to!
/Endsarcasm

So if placing the weapons on the front is MFA, is deploying a landraider backwards Placing for advantage?

It's an armour 14 box. It really in no way matters at all.

If one must follow the "model kit instructons" I suggest you try to build a Dakkajet with 3 supashootas.

You'd have to build a plane with the wings from another plane. That would break these... rules?

I dunno, I never did figure out where the storm bolter is meant to attach on a Sisters rhino.

Plenty of official GW examples have the guns on the front spot.

In fact, the original concept art for the current generation Land Raider had them on the front.

The old school Land Raiders had the guns forward of the doors too.


It's just that at some point, some moron building the first studio set pieces didn't think for a second about how ludicrous it would be to have weapons on an assault transport that couldn't be fired as the assault troops disembarked.


Put them on the front, and then sucker punch the first dude who tries to say you're cheating.

Tell him I said it was okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:

Best part about the internet nothing ever goes away Original LR Crusader box.

https://www.google.com/search?q=land+raider+crusader+box&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=m5d&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tuc5UeK3OofX2QXdpoDIDA&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=922#imgrc=ocQ4ZzvbcbvSwM%3A%3BWupeKQkr7WPhiM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.ebayimg.com%252Ft%252Fspace-marine-land-raider-crusader-older-box-nib-%252F00%252Fs%252FMTIwMFgxNjAw%252F%2524T2eC16VHJHYE9nzpeDFwBQlznd68O!~~60_35.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcgi.ebay.com%252Fspace-marine-land-raider-crusader-older-box-nib_W0QQitemZ121013516563QQcmdZViewItemQQssPageNameZRSS%253AB%253ASRCH%253AUS%253A101%3B300%3B225

I actually still have that box. Bought the LRC way back when it was very first released because I thought it looked so cool.

It has a bunch of bits stored in it.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Plenty of official GW examples have the guns on the front spot.

Except none of that matters.

As much as it seems to upset some of you, Peregrine is right. If there are clear instructions for where to put the sponsons, then that is where they go. Simple as that.

The only concise arguments I've seen are "Well, that's TFG behavior" and "Well, look at this picture of it done the other way!" but ask yourself if pictures and concepts of rudeness supersede actual building instructions. They may be more important morally, but instructions are instructions. If you do not follow the instructions, you are (by definition) modeling for advantage.

MFA is MFA. It seems that Dakkadakka gets pretty upset at the idea of MFA being called on them, but its a very real thing. If you are called for MFA, you have to use measurements as if the model were modeled properly.

-TheCaptain

Ps. 2" may not seem like much, but next time you get shot with a flamer, allow the guy to move it further into your ranks up to 2". You'll notice a difference

Because this isn't in YMDC I'm going to chip in my tuppence worth.
Assemble the model with the sponsons either front or back, and if anyone kicks up a stink about it in a friendly game roll a dice for it. 1-3 your opponent is right, 4-6 you are. Otherwise ask the TO for a definitive ruling.

I'm still waiting the rule quote which says that assembly instructions are part of the rules but the modelling section isn't.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm still waiting the rule quote which says that assembly instructions are part of the rules but the modelling section isn't.

Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?"

Because assembly instructions are rules for how to put together the models, and the models are included in the rules of 40k. If you break the "modeling rules", then that isn't a model allowed by the rules.

Modeling instructions are a GW publication telling you how to do something in order to use said model in a game of 40k. If you think those aren't clearly rules, then well...You might not be right.

Edit:

To be clear, in a game, I could never care less about anything than MFA. Put your sponsons wherever you want. I've seen someone put heavy bolter sponsons from a Valkyrie in the Back hatch so that it poops out HB rounds. Played him happily.

But this thread isn't about what you'd do, or what would matter to you. It's a black-and-white discussion of "Is it MFA or not".

Well we're no closer to a decisive result. And now I am a scared to leave my basement gaming area. Think Howard Hughes with uncut finger nails surrounded by 40k minis.

 TheCaptain wrote:


Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?"

It has plenty of examples and instructions on building models differently than by the instructions that come in the boxes, so, implicitly, yes.

Because assembly instructions are rules for how to put together the models, and the models are included in the rules of 40k. If you break the "modeling rules", then that isn't a model allowed by the rules.

I think they're more like suggestions...

Modeling instructions are a GW publication telling you how to do something in order to use said model in a game of 40k. If you think those aren't clearly rules, then well...You might not be right.

So modelling section is rules?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Plenty of official GW examples have the guns on the front spot.

Except none of that matters.

As much as it seems to upset some of you, Peregrine is right. If there are clear instructions for where to put the sponsons, then that is where they go. Simple as that.

The only concise arguments I've seen are "Well, that's TFG behavior" and "Well, look at this picture of it done the other way!" but ask yourself if pictures and concepts of rudeness supersede actual building instructions. They may be more important morally, but instructions are instructions. If you do not follow the instructions, you are (by definition) modeling for advantage.

MFA is MFA. It seems that Dakkadakka gets pretty upset at the idea of MFA being called on them, but its a very real thing. If you are called for MFA, you have to use measurements as if the model were modeled properly.

-TheCaptain

Ps. 2" may not seem like much, but next time you get shot with a flamer, allow the guy to move it further into your ranks up to 2". You'll notice a difference

Yet some of the model variants instructions tell you to put them in the front

Rules are not the same as instructions. And the modeling instructions are not telling you how to use something in a game of W40k, they are advising you on how to build a plastic model.

Why am I willing to bet that some of the people insisting on instructions being followed here are the same people who insist FW is not legal...

Hang on, and forgive me if I am wrong here but I have heard extensive arguments from people on here that Forgeworld is not official due to not mentioning it in the BRB. There is no mention of model assembly instructions being "rules".

Again I was worried about the perceived placement parts of my model in question. The intention was never to MFA. I was concerned with the perception that it might give others as to m play style.

I think I will default to what my LFGS community says, when we have this discussion in person.

I don't own a Land Raider so I just went and had a read of my old Ravenwing assembly instructions. I am faced with several problems;

1) It quite clearly states that plastic mould lines and injection markings should be removed using a modelling knife. Should I be automatically disqualified because I normally use clippers for some of these tasks, or just give my opponent bonus victory points?

2) Also, the instructions say the modelling knife should be sharp. Now, that leads to many smaller problems. GW sell a Hobby Knife, but not a Modelling Knife. Does a Hobby Knife count? If not, is acceptable to use non-GW equipment? What counts as a modelling knife anyway? I use a Craft Knife. Is this even the same thing? Also, my sharp knife is at my parents house for making terrain, and the only one I have left in my flat is not sharp. Should I refrain from removing mould lines at all? What about problem 1) above? Again, if I use an inappropriate knife, do I need my opponent's permission, or must I offer to concede? If not, how many victory points do I lose as a penalty for each infringement? Do I lose victory points for each inappropriately prepared model, or only a single penalty for the army as a whole?

3) If I make some cuts towards my fingers, do I lose victory points? Or only if I accidentally cut myself?

Please help!

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
Well we're no closer to a decisive result. And now I am a scared to leave my basement gaming area. Think Howard Hughes with uncut finger nails surrounded by 40k minis.

Don't worry, most people won't bite you and will happily play with you no matter how you place the sponsons . (Unless you brag about your awesome tactical mind that told you to place them here to maximize the potential of the unit... but if you are the kind to brag about it, you deserve the cold looks people would give you, lol) If you want to be paranoid about it, follow the instructions given with the model.

I think that people are mostly arguing between "Modeling for Advantage" and "Modeling with Unintentional Advantage" because doing MFA implies that you are a WAAC player, which is pretty much an insult for many...

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
Hang on, and forgive me if I am wrong here but I have heard extensive arguments from people on here that Forgeworld is not official due to not mentioning it in the BRB. There is no mention of model assembly instructions being "rules".

Again I was worried about the perceived placement parts of my model in question. The intention was never to MFA. I was concerned with the perception that it might give others as to m play style.

I think I will default to what my LFGS community says, when we have this discussion in person.

If anyone has a problem with LR sponsons in front show them picture of Forge World Mk II B raider that is intended to be used as standard LR. Sponsons in front is the only way it can be assembled.

 washout77 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Plenty of official GW examples have the guns on the front spot.

Except none of that matters.

As much as it seems to upset some of you, Peregrine is right. If there are clear instructions for where to put the sponsons, then that is where they go. Simple as that.

The only concise arguments I've seen are "Well, that's TFG behavior" and "Well, look at this picture of it done the other way!" but ask yourself if pictures and concepts of rudeness supersede actual building instructions. They may be more important morally, but instructions are instructions. If you do not follow the instructions, you are (by definition) modeling for advantage.

MFA is MFA. It seems that Dakkadakka gets pretty upset at the idea of MFA being called on them, but its a very real thing. If you are called for MFA, you have to use measurements as if the model were modeled properly.

-TheCaptain

Ps. 2" may not seem like much, but next time you get shot with a flamer, allow the guy to move it further into your ranks up to 2". You'll notice a difference

Yet some of the model variants instructions tell you to put them in the front

All I'm saying is "Follow the instructions, or you're MFA"

Wherever they tell you to put then for said variant.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm still waiting the rule quote which says that assembly instructions are part of the rules but the modelling section isn't.

Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?".

The point where your "logic" collapses.

So, if the instructions are hard, uncompromising rules for how the model is supposed to be put together, are not the pictures of the models being used in games in official Games Workshop material not also hard, uncompromising rules for how the models are supposed to be used in the game?



I'll be waiting. We all will.


But nobody will blame you if you show yourself to the Thread Exit.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:


Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?"

It has plenty of examples and instructions on building models differently than by the instructions that come in the boxes, so, implicitly, yes.

Because assembly instructions are rules for how to put together the models, and the models are included in the rules of 40k. If you break the "modeling rules", then that isn't a model allowed by the rules.

I think they're more like suggestions...

Modeling instructions are a GW publication telling you how to do something in order to use said model in a game of 40k. If you think those aren't clearly rules, then well...You might not be right.

So modelling section is rules?

"Implicitly" and "I think"?

You're interpreting now. Which is all fine, and leads to friendlier games, but when you try to add your own interpretation to GW's rules, things get fuzzy. Like this thread.

Everyone thinks you should be able to put sponsons wherever. Which is fine. But the instructions tell you where to put them. Those are the rules. Whether you care or not is another thing entirely.

 TheCaptain wrote:
All I'm saying is "Follow the instructions, or you're MFA"

That has no basis in the rules.

Unless you have a page and graph reference.

 TheCaptain wrote:

"Implicitly" and "I think"?

You're interpreting now. Which is all fine, and leads to friendlier games, but when you try to add your own interpretation to GW's rules, things get fuzzy. Like this thread.

Everyone thinks you should be able to put sponsons wherever. Which is fine. But the instructions tell you where to put them. Those are the rules. Whether you care or not is another thing entirely.

So instructions are rules (somehow), modelling section says you can alter your models and kit-bash, but this is not rules (somehow)?

This thread has, if nothing else, been invaluable in that it shows me who should be on my ignore list for having opinions too silly to bother reading.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Plenty of official GW examples have the guns on the front spot.

Except none of that matters.

As much as it seems to upset some of you, Peregrine is right. If there are clear instructions for where to put the sponsons, then that is where they go. Simple as that.

The only concise arguments I've seen are "Well, that's TFG behavior" and "Well, look at this picture of it done the other way!" but ask yourself if pictures and concepts of rudeness supersede actual building instructions. They may be more important morally, but instructions are instructions. If you do not follow the instructions, you are (by definition) modeling for advantage.

MFA is MFA. It seems that Dakkadakka gets pretty upset at the idea of MFA being called on them, but its a very real thing. If you are called for MFA, you have to use measurements as if the model were modeled properly.

-TheCaptain

Ps. 2" may not seem like much, but next time you get shot with a flamer, allow the guy to move it further into your ranks up to 2". You'll notice a difference

Yet some of the model variants instructions tell you to put them in the front

All I'm saying is "Follow the instructions, or you're MFA"

Wherever they tell you to put then for said variant.

Not always. In the case this exists, and im not gonna argue that point, is making any other pose for models besides how it tells me in the instructions MFA too? I haven't looked at IG instructions in a while, I don't really need it to build a guardsman anymore, but I don't think it tells you that you can/how to put on a melta-gun. Then again, it could (I haven't looked in a while, and I don't have a copy).

Anywho, im not getting too deep in this. To me, no one I have ever seen has ever argued the position of a LR sponson in person. No one who has ever done it as well, including me, has ever seen significant benefit from it (usually because you get about an 1" forward and no where else ).

Lastly, the only variant that it could possibly make a difference (the flamer) tells you to put it in the front so...this argument is kinda moot

only thing I care about is WYSIWYG and model size/height...


if your dreadknight or flyers are somehow only 2" off the ground,

I may have a curb I ask you to kiss


in 14 years of playing 40k... I have only gone up against 1 land raider ever.....

and it survived 1 turn, so im not too worried about there being two options for the sponsons...


also, what are instructions? my figs dont come with these ins truck sions.... does that mean when I assemble them I am MFA too?

easysauce wrote:
truck sions

New Ork vehicle?

easysauce wrote:

Also, what are instructions?

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread, but this tickled me.

Seriously, I don't think I've ever read the silly piece of paper that comes with my cool models.

Edit: Actually I did need to look at the Drop Pod instructions after scratching my head for a couple of seconds.

I think your fine. GW encourages us to convert and alter the models for variety.

One thing that does suck was you ruined my idea. I wanted to loot a landraider and stick a big cannon on top for my orks looted wagon and now I can't :(. Never thought about the KFF thing.

I don't believe I am still reading this thread let alone responding ...

OK - like it has been said repeatedly: Show the rule?

WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

To be honest, if it wasn't for WYSIWYG and requirements on using 'official' models (BTW ForgeWorld is actually recognized by GW to be completely official), we could play with cardboard boxes, soda cans, and little green army men with the living room as the battlefield.....

IF someone thinks that is opponent is MFA and has an issue - if you are at a tourney - get the TO and ask, otherwise - either don't play them or suck it up, buttercup!
< / rant >

Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

If you are changing your model because you think it will look cool, keeping the same measurements/gun placement/etc (or offering to count it as being the same if anyone objects), then very few people will have any problem with your conversions.

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.


In this case, it is just the simple definition of "MFA". As soon as your reasoning starts involves "I get extra range on my flamer" you are meeting the textbook definition of MFA. There is really no way to argue about this, the OP even admits the in-game advantages of doing it.

GW wrote: This box set contains one multi-part plastic Space Marine Land Raider. This large 101-piece kit can be assembled with the twin-linked lascannon sponsons towards the front or the back of the vehicle, and has a working assault hatch to the front.

Putting guns on the front hatches of the Land Raider is obviously acceptable and not modeling for advantage. After all, GW tells you you can do it in the product description. Anyone who won't let you put them there (and take all measurements accordingly) is someone you probably don't want to play against anyway

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

Sigh.

That has no basis in the rules in the BRB.

Unless you have a page and graph reference that says otherwise.

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

It's actually not in the rulebook.

 wowsmash wrote:
I think your fine. GW encourages us to convert and alter the models for variety.

One thing that does suck was you ruined my idea. I wanted to loot a landraider and stick a big cannon on top for my orks looted wagon and now I can't :(. Never thought about the KFF thing.

As a looted wagon, nothing stopping you.

Looted wagons can be based on anything, or even scratchbuilt, as long as it's clear how and where the gun (s) are mounted. There is no official Looted Wagon model, because that would totally defeat the point.

Loot a LR, Loot a tau Manta if you want. Legally speaking, it's all the same. In game it's still going to be an inferior rhino chassis, possibly posing as an inferior Basilisk..

A Battlewagon, though, has an official model and thus is open to attacks of MFA if you use a larger frame than the official one.

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. It is a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to play. most tournaments make it a rule, though.

MFA is also covered in some tournament rules packages.




For the issue at hand - There are no rules allowing conversions, but there are no rules that actually cover assembling your models at all. The rules simply assume that you are using 'Citadel Miniatures'... which can certainly be interpreted to mean the models as they are 'supposed' to be built.

When you start altering models, you start to create small changes in how those units function in the game. But in a game where the RT-era Space Marine-sized Eldar Avatar is treated as the same unit as the current giant sword model and also as the same unit as the Mr Giganto Forgeworld model... most of the time it really doesn't matter.

If you're doing something that is clearly abusive, like adding foot-long gun barrels to your tanks, or putting sails on your trucks to block LOS, then people are going to call you on it. But small changes for style reasons... The vast majority of gamers aren't going to care.

The Landraider door issue has been well and truly blown all out of proportion by this point. Refer to the assembly instructions as a binding pact with the Lord Almighty if it makes you happy, but at the end of the day very, very few people are going to either notice or care which door you mount the guns on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
A Battlewagon, though, has an official model and thus is open to attacks of MFA if you use a larger frame than the official one.

Theoretically, yes. I've received nothing but positive comments about mine, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. It is a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to play. most tournaments make it a rule, though.

MFA is also covered in some tournament rules packages.

OH - didn't it used to be? sorry if I misspoke....and I had never seen MFA in any touney info....

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.

And that is completely fine...they can walk and take the lose...fine with me...if the TO tells me otherwise - I will stand by whatever they say...

STILL - IT IS A GAME!!!! If someone flips one way or another....whatever...it is not like you are getting anything out of this than knowledge and fun

Peregrine, I'd still like to hear your opinion on banning FW Land Raiders as using them is obviously MFA. There cannot be different rules for same unit depending on how much I paid for the model. Either all Land Raiders can have their lascannons in front or none can.

I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, I'd still like to hear your opinion on banning FW Land Raiders as using them is obviously MFA. There cannot be different rules for same unit depending on how much I paid for the model. Either all Land Raiders can have their lascannons in front or none can.

Forgeworld design their vehicles independently of the GW design studio. They don't always follow the normal rules... The whole point of the pre-heresy Land Raider that you pictured is that it is different to the normal one.

Here's my two cents:

Good God this thread, and some of the opinions in it, is just stupid. As a 15 year veteran, it makes my insides hurt if the validity of arguments like this are now considered as a legitimate part of the current state of the game.

It used to be that having the lascannons fit either slot on a Landraider was considered to be, wait for it... a cool way to decide where you liked the looks of them.

I have a Land Raider with the sponsons in the back that is from the initial year that it was ever released for Chaos (with the good old spiky bitz sprue), and every damn picture on the box, illustration and studio models alike, have the lascannons mounted in the front slot. I'm pretty sure the instructions even list that it's up to the player to choose which mounting point they want to attach it to.

So the argument is nil, in my opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

Forgeworld design their vehicles independently of the GW design studio. They don't always follow the normal rules... The whole point of the pre-heresy Land Raider that you pictured is that it is different to the normal one.

Right, but it is intended to be used as standard Land Raider. Are you saying that Citadel Land Raider can't have it's lascannons in front but the more expensive model for the exact same vehicle can?

I just had a horrible thought..

I have two Redeemers. I built the first one by following the instructions, but as I had already built one, did the second on the fly.

Does this mean I can't legally field the second one?

(Facetious I know, but I'm trying to highlight how ridiculous some of the posts in this thread are getting)

 Crimson wrote:
Right, but it is intended to be used as standard Land Raider. Are you saying that Citadel Land Raider can't have it's lascannons in front but the more expensive model for the exact same vehicle can?

Personally I couldn't care less where you put the sponsons.

But your choice of models does have an impact on the rules. Even ignoring the front/rear door thing, that FW landraider has around a 120 degree fire arc on its sponsons, while the GW model has around 200 degrees.

The same is true of the 2nd/3rd ed era predator compared to the current model.

The FW Avatar has a vastly different LOS profile and base size to the GW model.

Your choice of flight stem changes how your skimmers and jetbikes function, as does the choice of standing or kneeling legs for Firewarriors or Guard.


All just part of the silliness that is the 40k ruleset, and why MFA in anything but really extreme cases really isn't that big a deal.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

Only post worth reading in this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

But your choice of models does have an impact on the rules. Even ignoring the front/rear door thing, that FW landraider has around a 120 degree fire arc on its sponsons, while the GW model has around 200 degrees.

The same is true of the 2nd/3rd ed era predator compared to the current model.

The FW Avatar has a vastly different LOS profile and base size to the GW model.

Your choice of flight stem changes how your skimmers and jetbikes function, as does the choice of standing or kneeling legs for Firewarriors or Guard.


All just part of the silliness that is the 40k ruleset, and why MFA in anything but really extreme cases really isn't that big a deal.

Well exactly, and that't why this is silly. If there are several legal kits for the same unit it cannot be MFA to model one kit so it is similar to the other.

Of course one thing that seems to have been missed here is that the FW one only gives you the LC version, the one where sponson placement has the smallest impact (because of the 48" range guns). You can't make the ones with shorter-ranged guns, where an extra 2" makes a big difference, using the FW kit. So it clearly isn't MFA (since you aren't modifying the model), and it isn't "buying for advantage" since the advantage is minimal.

And I still don't see how anyone can look at a situation where someone is building a model with the intent to give their flamers 2" more range, the textbook definition of MFA, and say that it isn't MFA.

Games are won or loss by fractions of inches. My God Hammers are all magnetized. I have seen the changes in tournament level back in 2008. The changes were from being back mounted to being front mounted. "Why did they did that", I asked them. "To get those 2 extra inches in shooting", they replied back at me. Sure as hell not for artistic reasons. To keep things honest I had to place my own weaponry more to the front like everyone else so I won't be at a disadvantage when competing against them.

That is when I understood that the mentality of the game and the hobby as a whole was starting to change into something that I would not have my grand kids get into this part of the hobby.

Presently this is a common thing to put your God Hammer weaponry in front than in the back. So when I play an opponent I look what he has in LR and place my weapons on my LR accordingly.

So, Peregrine, you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the kit is designed for the sponsons to go on either hatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it's worth, my redeemer is built from the FW Proteus, with the old-style sponsons. Nobody has commented on the placement of the weapons to date.

Games Workshop is a modeling company first.
Rules company second. /thread

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

If you are changing your model because you think it will look cool, keeping the same measurements/gun placement/etc (or offering to count it as being the same if anyone objects), then very few people will have any problem with your conversions.

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.


In this case, it is just the simple definition of "MFA". As soon as your reasoning starts involves "I get extra range on my flamer" you are meeting the textbook definition of MFA. There is really no way to argue about this, the OP even admits the in-game advantages of doing it.

Character models do not come with any sort of instructions. Neither do some other models in the range. Does that mean you have to field them in pieces??

So your definition of MFA is based purely on the modelers intent rather than the actual appearance of the model. That throws MFA as any sort of rule right out the window. I can model for advantage and tell everyone I did it because it looks better and the entire point becomes moot since your definition requires player integrity. If tourneys taught me one thing, many players lack a lot of that stuff.

If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

This.

It's very simple: if your conversion is purely an aesthetic one you'll have no problem measuring from the back position and there's no conflict at all. The conflict only happens if you want to "convert" your model and then claim the advantages of the new gun position.

Paitryn wrote:
Character models do not come with any sort of instructions. Neither do some other models in the range. Does that mean you have to field them in pieces??

We're not talking about some strawman game where your opponent refuses to allow you to convert a bolter marine to carry a melta gun. Even though it's technically RAW (IMO at least) it isn't relevant because nobody is actually going to play it that way. This thread is about modifying a model to gain an advantage.

 insaniak wrote:
So, Peregrine, you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the kit is designed for the sponsons to go on either hatch?

And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

Exalted...and my dear lady, you made this whole time reading this thread worth it.....

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

I would have issues with that. Messing about pretending that models are something different to what is actually on the table is just too much bother in a game that has rules that cause models to function differently based on which pair of legs you choose to glue on.

If you don't want to accept my converted model, that's fine. Plenty of other potential opponents out there who aren't taking these rather dodgy rules quite so seriously.

 Peregrine wrote:

And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

You've had at least a couple people in the thread now point out that this isn't, or at least hasn't always been always the case.

The last landraider I bought had it shown as optional. I'm not going out to buy a new one just to check if the instructions have changed and rendered my landraider theoretically illegal. It was assembled as per the instructions with which it was supplied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And really, this idea that mounting the weapons forward is some game changing exploit is even more silly when you realise that you can achieve the exact same outcome, perfectly legally, just by using the old land raider model, which is shorter and has the weapon mounts closer to the front...

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course one thing that seems to have been missed here is that the FW one only gives you the LC version, the one where sponson placement has the smallest impact (because of the 48" range guns). You can't make the ones with shorter-ranged guns, where an extra 2" makes a big difference, using the FW kit. So it clearly isn't MFA (since you aren't modifying the model), and it isn't "buying for advantage" since the advantage is minimal.

If you cared about the advantage being minimal, you would not have started this nonsense in the first place. Let's at least be consistent with this insanity: if putting lascannons in front on Citadel raider is MFA, then getting FW models is buying that exact same advantage with money. That is plenty of reason for any tournament to ban FW models.

And I still don't see how anyone can look at a situation where someone is building a model with the intent to give their flamers 2" more range, the textbook definition of MFA, and say that it isn't MFA.

You mean like this?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

I just laughed for a good few minutes. This post right here made the WHOLE thread worth it.



At this point in the thread, everyone is too stubborn. Peregrine isn't changing his opinion (despite it looking like the minority, and quite a few people have made interesting counter-arguments), and he isn't doing a good job of making others change theirs, so I don't see this going too far...

 Peregrine wrote:
And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

So you've not seen the instructions in question, and are arguing from a position of.... What? Guesswork?

Personally I could not tell what instructions from any kit say. Hell, I'm not sure if they even come with instructions, they probably do. Never looked at them.

The fact the sponsons fit on 2 positions and the original cover seem to point towards more than one legal build.

PIC:

I have the instructions for the redeemer kit I bought a little while ago. In the instructions the completed picture of the redeemer has the sponsons on the front, while the instructions for building it just show the dotted lines going to the back spots. So in one set of instructions the kit 'rules' have shown the builder that "GW made the front and back the same so you can switch the sponsons" - no conversions. The kit instructions show both ways through the completed picture and the actual building instructions - in this case I suspect GW figured it was so obvious you could put them in either slot that they didn't need to draw dotted lines to both. If GW only wanted them to go into the back slot they could have modelled the pieces to only fit one way - they didn't - and they showed examples of both ways. Remember this is the short range gun where it is supposed to be more of an issue (as opposed to the lascannon).

MFA can be an issue - this argument is just absurd.

Hey, why not- this is fun! More fuel for the flames...note the sponson locations on official GW artwork.





Not technically part of the argument, but for good measure:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, I'd still like to hear your opinion on banning FW Land Raiders as using them is obviously MFA. There cannot be different rules for same unit depending on how much I paid for the model. Either all Land Raiders can have their lascannons in front or none can.

Forgeworld design their vehicles independently of the GW design studio. They don't always follow the normal rules... The whole point of the pre-heresy Land Raider that you pictured is that it is different to the normal one.

That Forgeworld Land Raider is actually based on the very first MKIII Land Raider miniature from Epic 40,000.


So it's not actually a Forgeworld design, but an upscale of an old GW model.

Regardless, I have to commend The Captain for recognizing his awful wrongness. Maybe peregrine will realize the error of his ways and take flight.


Thread Exit is that way <-

I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.

It doesn't matter why you converted it, the end result on the table is what matters in practical terms. Players can refuse to play someone for any reason, they don't need to 'justify' it unless its a tournament in which case it's a matter for the judges. Why nitpick about the exact instructions in the GW kit when the company encourage conversions? If you can't handle a reposition on one part how do you cope with extensive conversions or something like Ork looted vehicles?

Two of the most annoying things coming from 40k players at the moment are people who MFA, and people who whine about MFA. This is entirely due to GW and their true line of sight and overly literal representation of the battlefield using miniatures. If you simply measured ranges from the centre of the vehicle in all cases the positioning of weapons wouldn't be an issue. The preoccupation with MFA is quite sad IMO.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hey, why not- this is fun! More fuel for the flames...note the sponson locations on official GW artwork.

OK, I just grabbed that issue off the shelf and flipped to page 22, where there is an article on how to build your land raider.

Under stage 2, (side armor assembly) substep 2 it is written:

"2. Now decide if the front or back hatchways will have the lascannon sponsons in them. The sponsons and the sliding door/datascreen/tool rack do not go in the same hatchway. Once you've decided which hatchways you're going to place the sponsons in, put the sliding door in place and glue the data screen/tool rack in the other hatchways. (see box below)"

The box below is captioned "Positioning Sponsons" and include the text "You have the choice of positioning the lascannon sponsons to the front or the back of the tank. Here are the options:" and two pictures, one titled "To the back" and the other "To the front" which display the TLLCs in the appropriate positions.

Now this is a very old reference, and might have been superseded by other sources. But is pretty definitive in it's message.

Going to say that this is kind of a pointless thread when dealing with the sponsons.. if you have them rear mounted and want the best firing arc... drive the dam thing backwards, if you want the best firing arc and they're mounted in the front.. drive normally.

 Fifty wrote:
I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

It's a toss up between Ailaros and peregrine. I suggested a cage match to determine the overall most stubborn person on dakka!



@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

It's a toss up between Ailaros and peregrine. I suggested a cage match to determine the overall most stubborn person on dakka!



@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

Except he's technically right.

People are so flustered by it that they refuse to acknowledge it, but GW can put a million pictures of sponsons all over their tanks. They could put out a picture of a Leman Russ with Sponson-mounted Thunderhawks on the front, back, top, and bottom hatches, but if the instructions say "Put X sponson in Y position" and X sponson is a Flamestorm Cannon and Y position is on the back hatches, then despite the picture, the instructions are clearly telling you what you can do, and where you can do it.

If you refuse to follow instructions for assembly in order to garner an advantage, then that is, by definition, MFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Regardless, I have to commend The Captain for recognizing his awful wrongness.


Thread Exit is that way

Excuse me?

A. This is remarkably rude.

B. Your point had no basis in fact. Please allow me to illustrate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm still waiting the rule quote which says that assembly instructions are part of the rules but the modelling section isn't.

Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?".

The point where your "logic" collapses.

So, if the instructions are hard, uncompromising rules for how the model is supposed to be put together, are not the pictures of the models being used in games in official Games Workshop material not also hard, uncompromising rules for how the models are supposed to be used in the game?



I'll be waiting. We all will.


But nobody will blame you if you show yourself to the Thread Exit.

Do the pictures in the models being used in games in official Games Workshop material say "this is how you use them in game"? Or do they say "This is how they should be put together"?

No. The only thing you can infer from those pictures is that GW has models built that way, and they took pictures of them. Those are the only facts presented.

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y" If you ignore this, or place X somewhere else for an in-game advantage, this is, by definition MFA. And ignoring clear instructions.

If you'd like to show me where one of these pictures say "You can build your Landraider like this, too, in addition to how the instructions tell you to" then I will concede my point and, as you put it, "Exit the thread"

-TheCaptain

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

Yes they do... The FW ones don't, but the GW kit does.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:


@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

um the sponsons should be able to swing all the way around. which would give the lascannons mounted on rear a "larger" firing arc.

The entire post is only about the position and firing arc of the sponsons. It doesn't matter if you can't hit stuff with the heavy bolter, because your either firing on a target that needs to be taken out with a lascannon or your firing the heavybolter at something and should of taken a different pattern of land raider.

also where are you playing that has people this anal about landraider sponsons? you might want to play agianst different people or go different store if they care that much about it.

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

When my friend built his it also said to put them in either position.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

 insaniak wrote:
Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.


Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

Who's ignoring anything?

I only am saying "If you put something somewhere the instructions don't say to, you're MFA"

I ignore nothing, I am all seeing

But seriously. I'm not saying you can't put sponsons in position A or B, I'm saying put them where the instructions say to. Both I and Peregrine have said "If the instructions say differently, then follow the instructions. We aren't familiar specifically with the Land Raider instructions."

We're speaking as a whole on the subject of MFA. Specifically, the idea of going against the instructions.

Won't do you any good.

They'll just claim that it was photoshopped

 Peregrine wrote:

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.

Which proves nothing more than that the instructions have changed at some point. I would guess when they updated to the plastic redeemer and crusader.

Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other... Unless you're going to insist on seeing the manufacturing date of the kit every time someone puts a land raider on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.

Which proves nothing more than that the instructions have changed at some point. I would guess when they updated to the plastic redeemer and crusader.

Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other... Unless you're going to insist on seeing the manufacturing date of the kit every time someone puts a land raider on the table.

It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Which makes it more of a Moral thing.

If Insaniak and I play a game, and he has sponsons on the front, and tells me "This is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position" then I might as well believe him(you). Because, like you say, the only way to prove it really would be to ask you for your manufacturing date, which is ridiculous.

But if I buy a new kit and it DOES in fact say "Put them on the back", and I play someone, I can just as easily say "this is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position", and unless my opponent is willing to check my manu. date, he might as well believe me.

But in situation 1, you are morally clean. In situation 2, I would be lying, and MFA. But both of us likely would get away with it. In your case, due to truth, and in my case, because despite my lying, the issue is too diifficult for the opponent to bother pursuing further, and instead they'd likely just accept me as probably telling the truth.

 washout77 wrote:

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't make a habit of hanging onto instruction sheets for a decade after buying the kit...

This thread is updating faster than I can refresh the page...

 insaniak wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't make a habit of hanging onto instruction sheets for a decade after buying the kit...

Fair enough. Although, I could likely rummage through my pile of crap on my desk and find papers I thought I got rid of years ago.

My instructions sheets usually end up in the bottom of the box the model came in, and that box is thrown somewhere to store something unrelated in and I forget all about that paper just to find it 3 years later "cleaning"

So if I put my Rogue Trader Land Raider on the table, is it MFA? It has a much smaller profile, but it's an official citadel miniature and therefore legal.

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other...

How is it pointless? The OP openly admits that the instructions don't permit it. The only question here is "can you build a model differently to gain an advantage", and that's textbook MFA.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Nope, again, in a game where a model's LOS profile is determined for the entire game, every game, on whether or not you choose to use kneeling legs or standing ones, it's a pointless piece of sophistry.

If Insaniak and I play a game, and he has sponsons on the front, and tells me "This is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position" then I might as well believe him(you). Because, like you say, the only way to prove it really would be to ask you for your manufacturing date, which is ridiculous.

Prior to this outbreak of lunacy thread, what reason would I have had to be aware that the instructions had changed?

If an opponent with a Land Raider of the same vintage as mine drops it on the table and you try to tell him that the instructions say the sponsons have to be on the back, he's not going to say 'Oh no, this was from back when...' He's just going to say 'No they don't'.

Unless you're going to start carrying around Land Raider instructions with you to prove the point, it's absolutely pointless to even mention it in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other...

How is it pointless? The OP openly admits that the instructions don't permit it. The only question here is "can you build a model differently to gain an advantage", and that's textbook MFA.

It's pointless because the instructions used to allow it. And arguing that your landraider can have the sponsons on the front, but only if it's more than 5 years old is ridiculous.

It's also pointless because, as I pointed out earlier, you can achieve the same result by just using the RT-era Landraider, which has only a single mount for the sponson, which is closer to the front.

When you can achieve the exact same result as your 'MFA' completely legally, it's completely pointless to insist that your 'MFA' is actually 'MFA'... At that point, it's just 'MLOPDI' (Modelling Like Other People Do It).

 insaniak wrote:


If an opponent with a Land Raider of the same vintage as mine drops it on the table and you try to tell him that the instructions say the sponsons have to be on the back, he's not going to say 'Oh no, this was from back when...' He's just going to say 'No they don't'.

Unless you're going to start carrying around Land Raider instructions with you to prove the point, it's absolutely pointless to even mention it in the first place.

It's actually quite relevant in Tournaments. MFA becomes a very significant issue, and if your opponent or the TO can produce instructions that say "They have to go in the back" and you can't produce yours that say "Put them anywhere" then, well, likely you're going to be found MFA by the Tournament Organizer, and they'll likely just have you measure from where the available instructions say the guns would go.

It's pointless because the instructions used to allow it. And arguing that your landraider can have the sponsons on the front, but only if it's more than 5 years old is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous, but not wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Nope, again, in a game where a model's LOS profile is determined for the entire game, every game, on whether or not you choose to use kneeling legs or standing ones, it's a pointless piece of sophistry.

You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:
You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

This. The OP asked "is this modeling for advantage", the answer is yes, it's a textbook case of modeling for advantage. As soon as your reasoning starts with "I gain an extra 2" for my flamers" you are modeling for advantage, and I don't know how anyone can possibly argue with that. You can say it's too minor or you personally wouldn't care about it, but it's still MFA.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's actually quite relevant in Tournaments. MFA becomes a very significant issue, and if your opponent or the TO can produce instructions that say "They have to go in the back" and you can't produce yours that say "Put them anywhere" then, well, likely you're going to be found MFA by the Tournament Organizer, and they'll likely just have you measure from where the available instructions say the guns would go.

If a TO seriously tried to rule that a landraider's sponsons have to be on the back, the far more likely outcome is for at least one of his players to pack up and walk out the door.

It's ridiculous, but not wrong.

Being ridiculous should be an indication that it's not the 'right' interpretation, regardless of how 'correct' it may seem by the book.

You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

I didn't say it was pointless to discuss here. The question was asked, and deserves an answer. My point was that bringing it up at the table would be pointless... for the reasons discussed here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
This. The OP asked "is this modeling for advantage", the answer is yes, it's a textbook case of modeling for advantage. As soon as your reasoning starts with "I gain an extra 2" for my flamers" you are modeling for advantage, and I don't know how anyone can possibly argue with that. You can say it's too minor or you personally wouldn't care about it, but it's still MFA.

Except that in this case, it's only modelling for advantage if your landraider came with one specific version of the instructions. Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

If one person can legally have his sponsons wherever he pleases, another person with the same model should be able to do the same.

 insaniak wrote:
If a TO seriously tried to rule that a landraider's sponsons have to be on the back, the far more likely outcome is for at least one of his players to pack up and walk out the door.

Yes, we all know that some players feel that they are entitled to minor MFA and other similar things, just like some players feel that they are entitled to RAI or their personal house rules and would pack up and walk out if a TO tried to enforce RAW on plenty of other things. That doesn't make it any less MFA.

Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

I never said it was enforceable, I said it was MFA. The thread is "is this MFA", not "will the average person refuse to play me if I do this". And the answer is yes, it is MFA, because the OP admits to doing it to get extra range from their flamers.

So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

This is nothing to do with 'entitlement'. It would be a ridiculous ruling to make.

 insaniak wrote:
So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

It has to do with intent.

If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

The OP clearly states that they have directions saying "rear only" and want to gain an in-game advantage by putting them up front instead. This is textbook MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

And yet in both cases, the model that winds up on the table is the same.

So what advantage are you getting, exactly?

 insaniak wrote:
So what advantage are you getting, exactly?

Again, it's about intent. You can complain all you like about how it doesn't make enough of a difference to care, but the moment you start changing things because you want to gain an in-game advantage you are MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, it's about intent. You can complain all you like about how it doesn't make enough of a difference to care, but the moment you start changing things because you want to gain an in-game advantage you are MFA.

It's not a matter of 'enough of a difference'... it makes no difference.

If the end result is two identical tanks, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the sponsons are placed where they are because I think it's tactically superior, because the instructions say to do it that way, or because the Ghost of Christmas Future took you on a trip through time and space and showed you that your life would be miserable if you glued them somewhere else.

Intent matters not a jot in this instance, because the end result is possible to do completely and utterly within the rules. Whether or not you're doing it because you think it will give you an in game advantage is irrelevant when it doesn't.

So tell me this then: should I be able to put modern terminators on 25mm bases (which will be very helpful when they arrive by deep strike) just because old terminators used to work that way and it's still legal to have terminators on 25mm bases?

I don't have a problem with it, no.

It would be a little hypocritical of me to say otherwise, since I've been telling people for years that whichever base they use on their jetbikes is fine, since GW have supplied them with a bunch of different size and shape bases over the years... and if it's good for unit A, it's good for unit B.

The fact that GW have steadfastly refused to define base sizes for units, and have changed the bases from a whole swathe of models over the years, creates a situation where two models can be exactly the same in every other way, but have different bases which results in them functioning differently in game.

It would be a trifle silly to complain about 25mm-based modern termies when the player could just field 2nd edition termies for the same result.


Added to which, opinions are still quite divided as to just which way changing the base becomes an advantage. There are in-game advantages to both smaller and larger bases compared to the other.

Hmm, lascannon range is 48", common gaming table width is 48". Failing to see the "advantage" that a forward mounted lascannon would give. LRC's with forwrd mounted hurricanes also don't seem to give a significant advantage as the LR is a trasport and therfore has to move forward in order to fulfill its role, when that happens a 2" advantage or disadvantage becomes a wash.

Example: LRC is at the extreme edge of deployment zone with HrB's in the front position, it's fire can cover the 'no-man's-land' without moving. An LRC with rear-mounts must move to accomplish the same area of effect. By it's very role a LR must move or else it becomes wasted points. Therefore any loss/gain of 2" is negligible when it is used correctly. When a LR is positioned correctly it will be perfectly able to affect a large area of the table.

If you can get it to the center, you can effectIvely control a 48" diameter area with a LRC regardless of whether the sponsons are in the front or rear positions.

I know some will try, but there is no disputing this.

.02

xraytango wrote:
Example: LRC is at the extreme edge of deployment zone with HrB's in the front position, it's fire can cover the 'no-man's-land' without moving. An LRC with rear-mounts must move to accomplish the same area of effect. By it's very role a LR must move or else it becomes wasted points. Therefore any loss/gain of 2" is negligible when it is used correctly. When a LR is positioned correctly it will be perfectly able to affect a large area of the table.

Now what if you want to move towards and shoot a target 29" away. If you mounted your guns in the front slot you can move up 6" and shoot it. If you mounted your guns in the back slot you move up 6" and fall short by 1" (assuming the distance between positions is 2"). And this is not just a hypothetical scenario, I've had many cases where 2" of extra range on a 24" weapon would mean the difference between being able to shoot and wasting a turn without shooting.

Move up then dismount. Termies use stormbolters 24" range, no less than what a LRC has, only disadvantage is that they don't have the TL capabilities of a HrB.

And don't forget about you TL asscan!

There are many ways to reach out and touch your opponent.

The point Peregrine is trying to make is that mounting the sponsons fore instead of aft gives them a little extra range... and because he considers the current assembly instructions to be binding, that means that you have given your vehicle a slight advantage that it wouldn't otherwise have.

Unless it was an older tank, that had instructions that allowed for either mounting.

There's no question that your choice of mounting makes a difference to how the vehicle functions in the game. But it's no more a cause for concern that any of the other myriad modeling choices that we can make that affect how our units function. The game is designed around the physical models, without locking those physical models into specific forms. And without that framework, sweating over one tank getting an 'extra' 2" of range when an identical tank can also get that same 2" of range with (apparently) no cause for concern just seems a trifle silly.

 insaniak wrote:

Except that in this case, it's only modelling for advantage if your landraider came with one specific version of the instructions. Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

I feel like this should be the point where it goes /thread

You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

And we all can (hopefully) agree that to actually pursue the notion in a real-life setting would be both (likely) inconclusive (without evidence), as well as TFG behavior.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:
You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

Not really, because as I have explained after that point, there is no advantage being gained so long as land raiders can be legally fielded in that configuration.

It's in 'Tactical Marine Sergeants with power axes are MFA' territory.

@Peregrine

The OP is making a a Land Raider, these instructions are different from the LRC / LRR kit which clearly states that the flamers go on the front sponsons. So please stop using the flamers as a reference to your argument as these are not outdated instructions but the current ones that tell you to put them on the front. I just made 2 of them for my Deathwing so my memory is fresh on this subject...
You can carry on using other references for your argument but just not the flamers as every time you say it you're in fact wrong.

GW currently produces Land Raiders that has front lascannons (FW Mk II B).

Saying that you cannot your put lascannons in front in Citadel raider but can in FW one makes just as much sense as saying that you cannot give all your Deathwing terminators lightning claws as they do not come in the box.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

The model lets you put them onto the front without any alteration to design. The SM codex even shows examples of Crusaders and Redeemers with guns on the front hatches.

"Conversion", for someone who doesn't model or paint, may mean "Place somewhere I didn't think about", but this model expressly allows it.It isn't just a possibility, it is designed to be like that. If I fething wanted to, I could place one front and one rear and you still couldn't tell me it's MFA because the model allows it naturally.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.


Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Peregrine I do not know what you read but not once have I ever stated "can I do Y to gain an extra two inches?" I suggested you go reread my OP and stop putting words in my mouth. My issue was clearly one of convieneonce since I want to use the kit as multiple land raider chassis. Not "I'm a douche and I want 2 inches of extra range, pleas confirm?"

I simply pointed out that I perceived these issues and wanted the communities opinion. Obviously you guys have some reading comprehension issues

Here is what I stated in OP:

"While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?"

I am honestly annoyed how some of you have tried to misconstrued my original intent. I think some of you guys need to take a deep breath.

Still laughing at this thread.

This is too funny.

No one is getting anywhere. And on top of THAT, the OP even said just above that you guys completely misunderstood what his point was so you are arguing using points (specifically Peregrine who has referenced the OP's intent multiple times) that he didn't even make.

This site worries me about the state of human sanity sometimes...

Anyone calling this MFA is the TFG, rather than the TFG being the one doing the modeling. There's nothing saying you have to put a pintle-mounted weapon in that hatch, or sponsons up front or rear.

I put them on the rear because it only makes sense. I already have a disembarkation hatch at the front, so it's logical to have the other two at the rear. Plus what kind of an idiot soldier would place them at the rear and thus preventing firing them while troops disembark? For me the range advantage is only conincidental.

And on top of it all? BT Codex was the first to have the LRC as far as I know. How is the LRC modeled there? Guns up front in every single picture where they are visible, except the army list drawing. A lot of GW's newer official pictures have them that way, even if some have them another way. But from their point of view it clearly doesn't matter, regardless of what the instructions say. I mean what next, the Razorback can't have a LasPlas loadout because it's not in the instructions and thus putting it there would clearly be MFA?

I personally have two LRCs, of which one isn't even out of the box yet. But you can bet they'll be mounted up front for the reasons mentioned. And anyone who has a problem with that can feel free to suck a big fat Vindicator barrel

While I may come off as serious, I gotta say that threads like this make giggle in disbelief. I know it's a cliche, but... why so serious? Especially about plastic soldiers.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.


Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Peregrine I do not know what you read but not once have I ever stated "can I do Y to gain an extra two inches?" I suggested you go reread my OP and stop putting words in my mouth. My issue was clearly one of convieneonce since I want to use the kit as multiple land raider chassis. Not "I'm a douche and I want 2 inches of extra range, pleas confirm?"

I simply pointed out that I perceived these issues and wanted the communities opinion. Obviously you guys have some reading comprehension issues

Here is what I stated in OP:

"While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?"

I am honestly annoyed how some of you have tried to misconstrued my original intent. I think some of you guys need to take a deep breath.

Ok, i guess I can try to refocus the discussion, here goes...

Don't worry about being TFG, It doesn't really matter which door you put it on. Sure if you want your Hurricane Bolter to be closer, then thats great, because you now have a side hatch 2 inches farther from the front, which if you are trying to charge a unit after disembarking that might put you short. If charging from a side hatch is more important than putting a weapon closer, then you can model the sponson in the back, and your hatch is now two inches closer.

I guess what I trying to say is is that it doesn't matter, since GW has put either weapon in either spot, so can you without fear. The weapon in front puts the door two inches back though, but most people probably charge from the front end hatch anyway, so this case i guess is moot *shurgs*

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

It has to do with intent.

If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

The OP clearly states that they have directions saying "rear only" and want to gain an in-game advantage by putting them up front instead. This is textbook MFA.

Ok.....What if I built one Landraider ten years ago, and then buy another one tomorrow? Am I forced to build the latter differently from the former because the instructions may have changed on the same kit?

If I build them both like the older one, and then field them both in the same game, is one making me guilty of MFA, but the other one right next to it is just fine because it's older, so in that case I'm safe, because "back then I was just making it to my personal preference and the instructions said I could"?

I swear, taking part in this thread is like reading a book in a Cthulhu RPG- risking insanity.

Deciding another's intent is a slippery process at best. To merely assume someone is trying to cheat because they've assembled a model slightly differently than what you believe to be 'correct' is a classic case of 'TFG'.

If I have a choice of buying two previously assembled land raiders, one with sponsons in front and another with sponsons in back, according to the mindset of some here I'd be MFA if a pick the 'non-standard' one, even if it were $10 cheaper. Seriously?

On a side note, the range boost is not 2" but about 1 3/8", but who's counting?

 amanita wrote:
Deciding another's intent is a slippery process at best. To merely assume someone is trying to cheat because they've assembled a model slightly differently than what you believe to be 'correct' is a classic case of 'TFG'.

If I have a choice of buying two previously assembled land raiders, one with sponsons in front and another with sponsons in back, according to the mindset of some here I'd be MFA if a pick the 'non-standard' one, even if it were $10 cheaper. Seriously?

On a side note, the range boost is not 2" but about 1 3/8", but who's counting?

Pretty much this. If your going to be a TFG an start the arguement at the table. I'm just going to simply tell you to prove it. Since your not a mind reader good luck proving intent or whatever other nonsense you want to spout off. Either play or clear off so somebody who wants to play can do so.

In Peregrine's and The Captain's utopia: Most 3rd Party Mini companies are non-existent, there are no more Orks, and all non-standard miniatures are illegal.

You're missing the point. All models have various ways of assembling them. The guide that comes with the model are guides, not instructions; they suggest how it can be assembled, unlike instructions, which say how it should be assembled.

I now raise you a question; if the model comes with a big selection of extras, i.e. an Ork Trukk, and one of the extras aren't in the guide, if I glue it on, is the model automatically illegal? Say I choose to give the driver a different head?

Oh, and there is no rule about modelling. GW promotes conversions more than anything. Show us the rule.

 Crimson wrote:


Saying that you cannot your put lascannons in front in Citadel raider but can in FW one makes just as much sense as saying that you cannot give all your Deathwing terminators lightning claws as they do not come in the box.

I've seen this/and smililar strawman(s) in here a few times. "Well, if I have to follow the instructions, then I can't make this conversion or that conversion /gotcha"

But really guys? Really? Do you honestly believe its the same thing?

 TheCaptain wrote:
They could put out a picture of a Leman Russ with Sponson-mounted Thunderhawks on the front, back, top, and bottom hatches, but if the instructions say "Put X sponson in Y position" and X sponson is a Flamestorm Cannon and Y position is on the back hatches, then despite the picture, the instructions are clearly telling you what you can do, and where you can do it.

If you refuse to follow instructions for assembly in order to garner an advantage, then that is, by definition, MFA.

I've already stated this, answering your question. You can only put options where the instructions tell you to put them.

But if the Codex tells you that you can have something, and there are no corresponding instructions for how to assemble them, then you have no one telling you what to do. No rules. You could take those lightning claws and jump on the bed with them. Eat dessert before breakfast with those lightning claws. Stay up after midnight with those lightning claws.

Or mount them wherever you like on your DW terminator, if the instruction doesn't tell you where to do it. Because the Codex tells you that you can take them.

-TheCaptain


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Oh, and there is no rule about modelling.

MFA isn't a rule. It's a concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel like this post needs another reference.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Except that in this case, it's only modelling for advantage if your landraider came with one specific version of the instructions. Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

I feel like this should be the point where it goes /thread

You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

And we all can (hopefully) agree that to actually pursue the notion in a real-life setting would be both (likely) inconclusive (without evidence), as well as TFG behavior.

-TheCaptain

It seems people are straying from the topic, and have begun addressing how "TFG" it is to call someone on MFA, or how hard it would be to prove. No one is debating that. It would be very TFG. And nigh impossible to prove.

But TECHNICALLY, if you have the instructions that say "PUT SPONSONS BACK HATCH BRO", then bro, they go on the back hatch.

Modeling for advantage is when you model your model differently than the instructions instruct, and you garner an advantage from that.

This is not a rulebook rule. This is not a law. It is a concept that any model may or may not fit into. It is a yes or no question.

By definition, if you look at your "They go back hatch, bro" instructions, and say "Nah, front hatch." then you are MFA. In the tiniest, most insignificant way, you are MFA.

Yes, no one will care, and anyone that does is an arse, but by factual definition of the term, MFA is in place.

-TheCaptain

I understand what TheCaptain and Peregrine are saying, but I still haven't seen the rules quite that says "model instructions must be followed to the letter" and I don't recall seeing any rule as such. I think this is important, and would have ramifications far beyond the Land Raider insanity.

If the instructions for SM show the kneeling figure with a ML, does that mean Its MFA to use the kneeing legs on any other model type? Or that MLs can only go on the kneeling figure? One of my Speeder instructions didn't show any weaponry, but my Ravenwing box set had extras - does that mean its MFA to put weapons on THAT Speeder, but not others?

Heck, my instructions say clearly to glue certain pieces in, yet I've chosen to magnetize some. MFA?


And I realize you claim it's a concept, not a rule, but you're applying rules (measure from rear placement) to e concept, so I'd like to know how far you'd expect to extend that concept to be followed.

I'm going to model a landraider thats designed to run up a flank with both lascannons on the same flank, because I can, because they fit, and because it's called modeling.

There obviously are certain common expectations on how the models are to be assembled, but I've no idea how the instructions would be any more authoritative than the official art and the pictures of assembled models.

SavageRobby wrote:
I understand what TheCaptain and Peregrine are saying, but I still haven't seen the rules quite that says "model instructions must be followed to the letter" and I don't recall seeing any rule as such. I think this is important, and would have ramifications far beyond the Land Raider insanity.

If the instructions for SM show the kneeling figure with a ML, does that mean Its MFA to use the kneeing legs on any other model type? Or that MLs can only go on the kneeling figure? One of my Speeder instructions didn't show any weaponry, but my Ravenwing box set had extras - does that mean its MFA to put weapons on THAT Speeder, but not others?

Heck, my instructions say clearly to glue certain pieces in, yet I've chosen to magnetize some. MFA?


And I realize you claim it's a concept, not a rule, but you're applying rules (measure from rear placement) to e concept, so I'd like to know how far you'd expect to extend that concept to be followed.

If you're modeling your model against the instructions and you gain any in-game advantage from it, no matter how insignificant it might seem, you are "Technically" modeling for advantage.

If you have unintentionally modeled your model to garner an advantage, and your opponent feels that you have done so, then, if the advantage is unintentional, one typically should have no problem using the model in question "As If" it were modeled normally.

For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 juraigamer wrote:
I'm going to model a landraider thats designed to run up a flank with both lascannons on the same flank, because I can, because they fit, and because it's called modeling.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but I'm glad you posted it.

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.

The exact problem with this is that there are and have always been (with Land raider MK2's) official GW studio models and official GW illustrations that cover both ways to assemble the sponsons on a Landraider, which establishes that both are fine. But people are completely ignoring that fact in able to continue repeating themselves in this thread.

The entire ability to support a MFA argument is one of the prime reasons why I am glad I haven't made the jump to 6th edition 40K. Geez, what a fun-killer. I personally think that measuring in the game would be much more solid if all measurements were taken to and from the center of a model's base, regardless of size. In the case of vehicles, exact center of mass as seen from directly above. It's not very hard to follow that, as a rule (well, except for Ork vehicles, as always ).

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Nope. Not legal. In the same way as using old Banshees Exarchs for their power axe, that's a clear case of CFA (Collecting for advantage)

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Why? You're not gaining any advantage that you wouldn't get by using the prone model in the first place. (Ignoring for a moment the argument over whether counting them as prone is an advantage in the first place, of course...)

 AegisGrimm wrote:

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.

The exact problem with this is that there are and have always been (with Land raider MK2's) official GW studio models and official GW illustrations that cover both ways to assemble the sponsons on a Landraider, which establishes that both are fine. But people are completely ignoring that fact in able to continue repeating themselves in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.

What if you're using the actual prone sniper models?

Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Or put plainly: Different models, different way to put them together. Even if they represent the same thing.

The entire ability to support a MFA argument is one of the prime reasons why I am glad I haven't made the jump to 6th edition 40K. Geez, what a fun-killer. I personally think that measuring in the game would be much more solid if all measurements were taken to and from the center of a model's base, regardless of size. In the case of vehicles, exact center of mass as seen from directly above. It's not very hard to follow that, as a rule (well, except for Ork vehicles, as always ).

MFA was the exact same concept in 5th, and nothing has changed about it.

Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable. But then there are no ambiguities to argue about.........

MFA was the exact same concept in 5th, and nothing has changed about it.

I don't remember all the fuss about measuring from the exact weapon in 5th, which is where this all stems from. But that might just be my memory ignoring something dumb.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then they could lay down. Because that's how they are supposed to be.

But my standing Cadians have to either stand, or be used as if theyre standing. Because that's how they are put together.

Why? You're not gaining any advantage that you wouldn't get by using the prone model in the first place. (Ignoring for a moment the argument over whether counting them as prone is an advantage in the first place, of course...)

Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

Of course it does. If it represents the same thing, it should be perfectly acceptable for it to perform the same way in game.

You're way means if I have one of the prone Guard models, and a plastic Cadian converted to be prone, I'm going to be treating one of them as being prone and the other as standing up... and that way lies madness.

Just use the model you have on the table, as is, and get on with the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable.

I don't recall that ever being a rule in Necromunda.

I don't remember all the fuss about measuring from the exact weapon in 5th, which is where this all stems from. But that might just be my memory ignoring something dumb.

You measured from the weapon in 5th.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Or put plainly: Different models, different way to put them together. Even if they represent the same thing.

This is utterly bonkers!

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just because it represents the same thing doesn't mean it can be put together the same way. (In this case)

Of course it does. If it represents the same thing, it should be perfectly acceptable for it to perform the same way in game.

You're way means if I have one of the prone Guard models, and a plastic Cadian converted to be prone, I'm going to be treating one of them as being prone and the other as standing up... and that way lies madness.

Just use the model you have on the table, as is, and get on with the game.

But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

Not whether or not it is MFA. Because frankly, the concept of MFA, when it gets down to such tiny concepts as this, is both ridiculous and madness.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Use Necromunda rules. All models are considered standing for Line of sight and cover issues- all modelling differences are for personal taste, and acceptable.

I don't recall that ever being a rule in Necromunda.

Personally, I'd have to actually check for absolute surety. Who knows, maybe that was simply a result of my local group not caring to get into such endless arguments about MFA, and instead just have fun playing the game. It's been a long time since I cracked open the book- I bought into the game back when it first came out, not the later reprint.

(Nope. I looked back at the book, and nothing is said, other than the players should come to a mutual agreement as to whether or not a model can be see or be seen from behind cover/hiding . I like to think that it's probably because Necromunda came from an age where MFA was never considered as something players would ever do, because they are both there to have fun, not just win. If you had a guy that would only be able to be in a cover situation if he was kneeling, but the model was "standing/running", you simply said he was put there with the intent that he was "kneeling behind cover", and the matter was solved.)

Not whether or not it is MFA. Because frankly, the concept of MFA, when it gets down to such tiny concepts as this, is both ridiculous and madness.

I think this thread would be shorter if everyone was able to agree to this statement. However.........

Serenity now!

Cheesedoodler wrote:
The argument is not (and since the beginning of the thread) has never been about Land Raiders specifically. It's about modifying your models to operate in a way other than the instructions intended you to do. Some LRs instructions tell you to put them forward, and some LR instructions tell you to put them in the back. You have to follow the instructions that came with the model!

Yes, putting the sponsons forward will more than likely NOT have a dramatic impact on any game, and no, no one is ever going to call you out on it and make a fuss (because frankly, making a fuss about it in a game would be ridiculous) but that is not the point of the argument, and it is not the point of the thread! People need to understand that Conversions and "counts-as" are not *strictly* legal. It just comes as understood that no one has a problem with it, and that before each game there is an unstated house rule or unstated agreement that allows you to use them.

Not that I (or anyone I know) ever would, but at tournaments a player is within his rights to simply not accept the use of your conversions, because they are not citadel models built as the instructions told you to do.

And this is why tournaments get such a bad rep among players who's sense of fun isn't a necrotised and atrophied memory; who could honestly be so pedantic as to insist that not following the instruction leaflet when you build your models is "against the rules", even as a hypothetical? It's mad.

 TheCaptain wrote:
But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

No, the argument lies in the concept that two identical models should function identically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
And this is why tournaments get such a bad rep among players who's sense of fun isn't a necrotised and atrophied memory; who could honestly be so pedantic as to insist that not following the instruction leaflet when you build your models is "against the rules", even as a hypothetical? It's mad.

The fact that people are pedantic on the internet has no bearing on how players behave in tournaments.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
But this argument still lies in the concept that "Nitpicking at such a thing is so menial that it is ridiculous" and that it is "Madness"

No, the argument lies in the concept that two identical models should function identically.

I agree that they should.

But 40k uses silly rules like TLOS and Measuring from the gun, so when GW produces different models, they need to be used differently, despite being the "same tabletop unit"

Except that 99.9% of friendly, normal players won't care. So in real life it doesn't matter. But on the internet, it seems to.

Because you made it?

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Because you made it?

Made what?

This is the most entertaining thread I've read in a long time.

I've assembled and painted 4 Land raiders. I really wish I had kept my instructions as one was really old and had the old metal Hurricane Bolters.

Some of the pictures on the GW site and FW site have the sponsons on the front doors, and that's good enough for me.

We can aruge strict RAW all day, but has anyone been denied a tournament spot because their guns were up front? Didn't think so...

 kronk wrote:

We can aruge strict RAW all day, but has anyone been denied a tournament spot because their guns were up front? Didn't think so...

No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

 TheCaptain wrote:

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as everyone is on the same page and not inadvertently telling some new hobbiest his model won't be allowed at a tournament because his sponsons are up front.

 TheCaptain wrote:


No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

This thread was started by an actual person asking for actual advice regarding assembly of an actual model to be used in actual games.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:


No, because that would be ridiculous. I think everyone can agree that. No one saying this debate isn't menial, pointless, and ridiculous. Because it is.

But so are half of the rule debates in this game. Some people enjoy discussing the finer points of the rules that, ultimately, never actually matter in real-life games.

This thread was started by an actual person asking for actual advice regarding assembly of an actual model to be used in actual games.

Yeah.

And he got his answer.

It's the most minute, insignificant, nigh-impossible to prove case of MFA. But no one will care in real life, so ultimately he can do whatever he pleases.

MFA is an convention, and as such is dependent on the opinions of the playerbase. Clear majority here do not see it as MFA. Definition you and few others are using is so broad that it renders the concept utterly meaningless.

 Crimson wrote:
MFA is an convention, and as such is dependent on the opinions of the playerbase. Clear majority here do not see it as MFA. Definition you and few others are using is so broad that it renders the concept utterly meaningless.

The concept really isn't broad. And it's a clear-cut concept. Believe me.

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA. If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, but put lasguns in the sponson-mounts because it looks cool, and the lasguns are cut at the same length as the multimelta sponsons, and I measure exactly the same, it is a Proxy/count-as.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, but I mount the sponsons on the face of the Leman Russ, which (intentionally or not garners me certain advantages) I am MFA.

If I put together my Leman Russ with Melta Sponsons, and I mount the sponsons where the instructions tell me to, I am literally 0% MFA. Not, as some seem to suggest in this thread, so close to 0% that it is insignificant enough to not count as MFA.

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

As much as I enjoyed the hilarity in the thread (that post about Modeling/Hobby knife takes the prize)

Doesn't MFA actually mean MFUA, i.e. Modelling for Unfair Advantage? You're only MFA if you're putting a 12" long Melta on your Crusader.

Anyone can construct the LR with sponsons in either position so you're not MFA. Do you get an advantage putting them in front? Yes. Are you MFA? No.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

I still do not get why instructions matter but official art or pictures of assembled models don't. Instructions are just pictures too.

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA.

Like giving tactical squad a plasmacannon?

If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

Like kneeling plastic sniper counting as kneeling metal sniper?

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

You have to gain advantage you could not gain by using any legal model or reasonable combination of parts before we can even start to consider whether it might be MFA. Why your definition is bonkers because it cares what the original model was or where the parts came from. There are kneeling snipers and snipers that lay down, and those are legal to use in games (Like there is LR model that can be assembled only with lascannons if front) It does not bloody matter if the actual model you're using is converted to be that way or was that way originally, because you could do that anyway by getting a different model!

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Are you assembling the model by the instructions? Yes or no?

I still do not get why instructions matter but official art or pictures of assembled models don't. Instructions are just pictures too.

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

If it is no, and you garner some advantage or disadvantage from it, it is MFA.

Like giving tactical squad a plasmacannon?

I've addressed this strawman fallacy earlier. This is not a valid comparison. Codex says you can have a Plasma Cannon, Instructions don't tell you where to put it. So you have no rules. Only that you can have it. Put it wherever. On the base. On his head. On his backpack.

Codex tells you that you can take stuff, so you can take it. Instructions tell you where some of it goes. Said some goes where the instructions tell you. The other stuff with no instructions is left between you and God.

If it is assembled outside the instructions, but works exactly the same, it is a Proxy/Count-as.

Like kneeling plastic sniper counting as kneeling metal sniper?

This was addressed too. In depth between Insaniak and I.

I don't see how MFA can be defined any other way.

I'm curious how you define it. As it seems you're implying that the advantage has to be some Threshold of significance in order for you to see it as "Qualifying" as MFA.

You have to gain advantage you could not gain by using any legal model or reasonable combination of parts before we can even start to consider whether it might be MFA. Why your definition is bonkers because it cares what the original model was or where the parts came from. There are kneeling snipers and snipers that lay down, and those are legal to use in games (Like there is LR model that can be assembled only with lascannons if front) It does not bloody matter if the actual model you're using is converted to be that way or was that way originally, because you could do that anyway by getting a different model!

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

 TheCaptain wrote:

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

They're just suggestions. In many multipart kits they can never show all possible combinations. Do you really think if you put the kneeling legs on a different model than in the instructions it is MFA?

I've addressed this strawman fallacy earlier. This is not a valid comparison. Codex says you can have a Plasma Cannon, Instructions don't tell you where to put it. So you have no rules. Only that you can have it. Put it wherever. On the base. On his head. On his backpack.

It is perfectly valid. If it is not in instructions, it cannot be done. Either the instructions are binding, or they're just suggestions. You cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that in many multipart kits they do not show every weapon option even if they come in the same box. And by your logic, if option is not in instructions it cannot be done, just like putting the lascannons in front in LR.

Codex tells you that you can take stuff, so you can take it. Instructions tell you where some of it goes. Said some goes where the instructions tell you. The other stuff with no instructions is left between you and God.

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Well, if someone really want to intentionally make their models look silly, sure. Though there is certain difference between current and long out-of-production models. Base sizes are a muddy area anyway.

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Instructions are pictures and, you know, instructions on how to build the official Citadel Miniature

They're just suggestions.

None of my instructions say "try putting Part X here! It might be fun/cool. Just a suggestion."

Mine just say "Put part X here."

That's pretty clearly an instruction.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Just chiming in randomly on this matter: For the record, all of my Rhinos are the old ones. All the Terminators I have painted are the old metal ones on 25mm bases. Adding 5 of the new Terminators to my army, intentionally squeezed on 25mm bases, wouldn't change the fact that the 15 that I already can field have been like that all this time.

So I would have been playing like a person who is MFA this whole time, with legal models.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

So you'd allow converted Terminators the height of regular Space Marines, on 25mm bases like the old termies?

And converted Rhinos a half-inch shorter and less long like the old rhinos?

Just chiming in randomly on this matter: For the record, all of my Rhinos are the old ones. All the Terminators I have painted are the old metal ones on 25mm bases. Adding 5 of the new Terminators to my army, intentionally squeezed on 25mm bases, wouldn't change the fact that the 15 that I already can field have been like that all this time.

So I would have been playing like a person who is MFA this whole time, with legal models.

Not by my precise, fact-based definition.

Old Termie Model, built as intended, no MFA. Totally okay.

New Termie model, build like an Old one, MFA.

TheCaptain, what do the instructions in the Devastators box say? If it shows how to assemble the marine in the Devastator squad with the Plasmacannon, does that mean that model can never be used outside of that squad? Because, the instruction than say it is a Devastator, not a Tactical marine.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.

How so? You've built a model with no instructions however you please.

Orks do this all the time with some vehicles. People do the same with IG Veterans, Tervigons (Back when there were no Tervigon models), Penal Legion, etc.

The silliness of your idea for a modeling opportunity does not make my notion silly.

So is anyone who builds a unit that has no official model automatically MFA?

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
TheCaptain, what do the instructions in the Devastators box say? If it shows how to assemble the marine in the Devastator squad with the Plasmacannon, does that mean that model can never be used outside of that squad? Because, the instruction than say it is a Devastator, not a Tactical marine.

Au contraire. I think a Devastator with a Plasma Cannon would be fantastically fitting as a count-as for a Tactical Marine with a Plasma Cannon.

Since there are no official models for Tactical Marines with Plasma Cannons, and no instructions for building Tactical Marines with Plasma Cannons, you'd be fully at liberty to use a Devastator Marine with a Plasma Cannon in its stead.

Just like how people used Carnifexes with GS'd tummies as Tervigons, before Tervigon kits were released.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

So if there is no instruction for assembling tactical marine with a plasmacannon I can assemble all the part into a as high tower as I manage and put the cannon on top of it? And by your logic that would not be MFA?

Yes.

There are no instructions for how to do it. They left you to your imagination on that one.

Right. I think we are done here. You asked why I thought your definition of MFA is useless and silly. I think answer should be pretty clear to anyone at this point.

How so? You've built a model with no instructions however you please.

Orks do this all the time with some vehicles. People do the same with IG Veterans, Tervigons (Back when there were no Tervigon models), Penal Legion, etc.

The silliness of your idea for a modeling opportunity does not make my notion silly.

So, TheCaptain, what you are saying is that if I built an Ork Looted Wagon that was super tall and had a big Orky cannon on it, and designed it so I could lay it down so that the cannon could be sitting in your deployment zone turn one is not MFA?

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
So is anyone who builds a unit that has no official model automatically MFA?

My posts above and below yours address why this doesn't make any sense within the boundaries of my explanation.

My stance is "Follow the instructions, as/if they are given to you."

I feel like I've said this several times now, addressing the exact same question.

If you have no instructions, you have no one telling you how to build your models. There are no lines to draw inside. You are free to model as you please, with the only limitations being what the codex tells you said model in question can take.

One thing I don't get is how "you can't prove it wasn't the old model" is any kind of justification. If you move your tank an extra 2" and your opponent doesn't catch you does it somehow cease to be cheating? If not, why should it be any different with MFA?

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:

So, TheCaptain, what you are saying is that if I built an Ork Looted Wagon that was super tall and had a big Orky cannon on it, and designed it so I could lay it down so that the cannon could be sitting in your deployment zone turn one is not MFA?

It'd be rather unsportsmanlike.

But (as far as I can recall) there is no Looted Wagon model, so you can kitbash literally however you want.

I don't think anyone will disagree with the freedom to model as you please when there is no model for the unit.

This whole thread is pants on head slowed.

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

It's been said several times that MFA isn't a BRB rule, it's a concept.

This is like saying "Calling someone ugly isn't rude; show me the law!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
This whole thread is pants on head slowed.

Do you disagree that someone is free to model as they please when they are making a unit with no official model?

Within reason, yes, they are. But I also believe that the instructions that come with the models are guidelines, just like the art work that is on the website, the box, and in the Codex. Just like how people are free to paint their army however they want, and given the freedom to even create NEW Space Marine Chapters, and convert their models as they see fit (Which is encouraged by GW).

Silliness like this why I rarely play games except with people I know anymore. When I used to go to my local games store every day, DakkaDakka was a store in the mill buildings in Manchester, New Hampshire, and owned by the Wakelins, and stuff like this would be laughed at because it is so trivial.

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
Within reason, yes, they are.

stuff like this would be laughed at because it is so trivial.

But who decides what is within reason?

And yeah. Everyone has said it is trivial. Ridiculously trivial. But there is still an answer, even to the most trivial questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImperialFists2ndCompany wrote:
But I also believe that the instructions that come with the models are guidelines

They're definitely instructions.

But no one in the world can stop you from only using them as guidelines. And few will ever care if one doesn't follow them perfectly.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

Do you have a BRB Citation to confirm your assertation?

It's been said several times that MFA isn't a BRB rule, it's a concept.

This is like saying "Calling someone ugly isn't rude; show me the law!"

So it is not against the rules to put the guns in the front position. Good to know.