Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Neutralista wrote:
I would like to point out this simple fact, as stated on the DAMN BOX OF EVERY KIT.

"These multi-part plastic miniatures can be assembled in a variety of ways." Note, it doesn't say "can be assembled according tomthe provided instructions." It says "can be assembled in a variety of ways." So, it even says on the box in an indirect fashion that the instructions are simply a guide.

That's a pretty broad interpretation.

Where does it even reference the instructions, let alone say "Hey, the instructions in here; feel free to ignore parts of them."

The instructions clearly show a variety of different ways the miniatures can be assembled. Guardsmen can have lasguns, lasguns with bayonets, a laspistol and a grenade, a laspistol and a chainsword, etc etc.

"Can be assembled in a variety of ways" means your model has options. That's all.

And the Land Raider that made this thread so controversial has an option to put the sponson up front, so by your own logic, it isnt MFA.

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, just because you can see an advantage, that doesn't automatically mean that there is an advantage overall. It's not always as simple as 'This is different from the original model, and so must be MFA'. It's even less simple when it's not actually different from the original model, as per the post that started this thread.

The Land Raider is a non-issue to me at least - I've seen quite a lot in different configs and an old mate still uses a RT era LR with his RT beakies and RT Rhinos. I've never though "oh damn, he has gained 2'' of range by having the flamers in the front mounts". It will lessen the sector he can cover to the side instead and maybe means he can't flame my outflanking Dominions once they've immobilized his LR. And artwork/pictures show both ways so fine by me.

I'd start getting wary at about the point I spot someone who has refitted the gun mounts on his psyfleman dreads higher so that they can shoot over a standard Rhino. And I'd be sure once he deploys the dreads in cover behind the Rhinos. He's rebuilt the models so they can use the cover and have a full field of fire over a Rhino, something a standard dread can't do.

Neutralista wrote:

And the Land Raider that made this thread so controversial has an option to put the sponson up front, so by your own logic, it isnt MFA.

I don't think the argument really is about MFA anymore, So much as if the instructions are really an argument for RAW at all. Since MFA isn't actually a rule anywhere in the book, but RAW is the basis for MFA, you have to determine if instructions that came with the model would be considered RAW. I would say no on the basis that nowhere does the BRB say models must be assembled according to instructions provided by Citadel minatures.(they actually say the opposite of this) The nightmare that would ensue (considering all blisters lack instructions) would result in needing FAQ's for model packages from blister packs to box sets.

Dear god orks would be out of luck completely as there are simply so many ways to assemble orks even with the instructions. Also many larger tournaments add conversions to their painting and modeling score (small points for something simple as head swaps up to scratch built conversions) so the entire argument shoots itself in the foot. I've come to realize from this thread that MFA is a rediculous concept as there are lots of players with different viewpoints as to what would be considered MFA, and some even counter-intuitive to the games overall design point.

While not really GW's fault, it is grounds for removing true LOS rules from the game as its bringing about rediculously stupid headaches from the players upon other players.

Paitryn wrote:
Also many larger tournaments add conversions to their painting and modeling score (small points for something simple as head swaps up to scratch built conversions) so the entire argument shoots itself in the foot.

Except that any reasonable player will have no problem with a minor thing like a head swap. The issue is MFA, not conversions, and part of MFA is that you gain some kind of advantage. So changing your gun locations to gain extra range would be MFA, while changing a model's head has no meaningful impact on the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that any reasonable player will have no problem with a minor thing like a head swap. The issue is MFA, not conversions, and part of MFA is that you gain some kind of advantage. So changing your gun locations to gain extra range would be MFA, while changing a model's head has no meaningful impact on the game.

any reasonable player will have no problem with front mounted sponsons either.

Except honestly I have never seen anyone in tournament accused or thrown out for MFA. Why? because it doesn't exist as a ruleset. Too subjective. Of course I've also never seen someone in tournament dumb enough to model a base 3 inches taller or something and expect to get away with it. Something so minor as the discussion here will never come into question. Its tragic that it is coming to question here. Head swaps were an example of conversions but you missed the scratch built conversion part. if made of gw products its legal, provides big conversion points in the score and you can model that any way you want. Now that has much more potential for abuse within the ruleset than a 2" move on a flamer or hurricane bolter (which after checking on one in my garage can swivel 180 behind it, nullifying your MFA argument. one that has it in the rear can simply pivot and swivel for the extra 2")

There are much more potential abuses within the system than the landraider with models perfectly legal within the system.

I'm not imagining this thread am I? This is a real thread right, a thread where people are genuinely and with much passion arguing about:

This:


vs

This:


And this 'argument' involves discussions over following instructions to the letter (IAR?).

I think we've officially reached peak moron. There's really no point in Dakka even continuing. Lego might as well set the servers on fire if this is something that's a serious and real discussion.

 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.

So you're not just playing devil's advocate?

Ok then...

I'd like to take this moment to apologize to the Dakka community for opening this can, I had no idea how many worms would come out.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
I'd like to take this moment to apologize to the Dakka community for opening this can, I had no idea how many worms would come out.

Sad isn't it

However some people have a serious problem with others having wrong fun.


The simple fact is you can mount it either in front or in back as you choose the only variant where you cannot is the Land Raider Terminus Ultra which has single lascannons in the front and twin-linked ones in the back.

 captain collius wrote:
However some people have a serious problem with others having wrong fun.

Please for the love of god stop saying this.

Peregrine, et. al. have been saying that no one would stop you from playing with your model and that anyone who even brought it up would be stretching the lines of sanity.
It's a very, very, very minor case of MFA but if the instructions say to put them in the rear then it pretty much is the definition of MFA to have them in the front.

I think a this argument has gone from practical to theoretical. "MFA, however slight, is still MFA"

IMHO, there is enough precedent in the form of pictures from GW that either front or back is acceptable. Both on one side is not, but don't be TFG.

As my quoting of the text earlier didn't seem to register, I present a pic of WD 245. Unless someone can give an example from a more modern source, this should be the end of the front/back discussion on the LCs.



(sorry for the sideways pic, first try posting a pic directly from my iPad)

I can't believe this thread is 9 pages long. Place the sponsons where you want and if you play someone who wants to be "that guy" about it, play someone else with more sense/social life.

This just in: assembling models is MFA because assembling the model means you can use it in the game, thus garnering an advantage!

I think this topic is stretched as thin as it'll go.