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.

J Mac wrote:Who is to say how it is intended?

The guys who made the model, who have stated publicly that they fully intended for people to be able to choose to place the LR sponsons on either hatch.

think about the contradiction you'll make with this landraider argument.

Which contradiction is that?

insaniak wrote:

J Mac wrote:Who is to say how it is intended?

The guys who made the model, who have stated publicly that they fully intended for people to be able to choose to place the LR sponsons on either hatch.

think about the contradiction you'll make with this landraider argument.

Which contradiction is that?

Right but these aren't rules. Directions aren't rules. It may be how they intended, but that is just that INTENDED. Honestly I don't see a problem with a TL LC being up a few inches as it should be able to hit almost anything with decent deployment anyway. There are no rules saying how to assemble vehicles, except that they must represent what is fielded and should be the same (similar for older models) size.

Akroma06 wrote:Right but these aren't rules. Directions aren't rules.

insaniak wrote:Modelling for advantage has never been a rules issues as much as a 'can't we all just get along?' issue. GW has always been vague on just what is and isn't acceptable model-wise which, when combined with a ruleset that results in models functioning differently on the table depending on how they are constructed, leaves it up to players to determine just what is and isn't acceptable.

And really, everyone is never going to agree there. Until GW give us a ruleset that either considers different model profiles or renders them irrelevant, we'll just have to keep either playing with like-minded players or discussing our conversions with opponents if we want to avoid hassles in the middle of a game where the turret being an inch further forwards suddenly matters...

There are no rules covering conversions at all. The rules are written on the assumption that you are using standard GW models. Anything else is straight into 'what you and your opponent are happy with' territory.

Fair enough. My point was that they could go anywhere in a conversion. The rules do assume that you are using standard models. I will agree with both of those points. My point was that the instrunctions that come with kits aren't rules. It's here how you can build this model. I do also agree on your quote as well. There is no rule saying how to build the model or where the gun has to be. It just says turret mounted.

insaniak wrote:The guys who made the model, who have stated publicly that they fully intended for people to be able to choose to place the LR sponsons on either hatch.

Which page of the rulebook is this quote you speak of and what faq and what page of faq? Or did I somehow not wind up in the YMDC forum on dakka?

What I want to know, as far as the rule book goes...

What the hell is this 'turret' thing you speak of?

J Mac wrote:.

IMO, I was clearly modeling it that way because I did want that extra inch.

This is the only statement that matters, where you admit that you were modelling for advantage. That makes it wrong. See how easy this is?

Its funny, don_mondo, I was thinking something similar. On the other hand, it is refreshing enough to have such honesty up front that even in a tourney I would probably have no issue.

If the person brought a "normal" version to use for the folks that DID had issue I would go so far as to say it is worth bonus points.



ymmv

If you modeled it closer for appearance, just minus an inch from your measurements... You should have no cares about this because you did it for appearance right?

If you did it for advantage, well you did it for advantage which makes you wrong so minus an inch from your measurement.

insaniak wrote:Because in the case of the land raider, it's an intentional design feature. In the case of the razorback, it's assembling it incorrectly.

The Land Raider was intended to be configurable. The Razorback wasn't.

And where is the quote from the designer of the blurb in the instruction manuals stating this as fact as you have?

Fact is, there is no rule dictating where turrets are placed. The whole point of 'modeling for advantage' is left with the integriy of the player. However getting an extra inch of range by placing the weapon mount backward is hardly a dick move, especially since the majority of the time it won't matter.

You guys have to consider when I assembled my model that way it wasn't even an issue of the directions on how to put it on there. This detail didn't even cross my mind; common sense told me to put it towards the front.

I've seen Banblades with the following (S is sponson):
Front<---->Back
S _ _
_ S _
_ _ S
S S _
S _ S
_ S S

which one is right? All of them as far as I'm concerned. Some of the tanks are designed with movable sponsons.

J Mac wrote:You guys have to consider when I assembled my model that way it wasn't even an issue of the directions on how to put it on there. This detail didn't even cross my mind; common sense told me to put it towards the front.

... in order to gain an extra inch of distance, as you said earlier.

"I Modelled it that way for the purpose of gaining the advantage of the extra inch"

Both the intent and mindset seems pretty clear to me.

For me I selected the "towards the back" option cause I just assume there is where it should go ... *shrug*

As for the LC issue, when is a LC not in range (assuming it has LOS)? I can see both sides of the argument but for a LC, I believe it's a minor issue, outside of large games where more than a standard board might be in use.

Steelmage99 wrote:"I Modelled it that way for the purpose of gaining the advantage of the extra inch"

Both the intent and mindset seems pretty clear to me.

Yeah ... not good, QFT

LC's 'only' have a 48" range.

It could come up in spearhead deployments quite easily.

I'm still trying to find the definition of this 'turret thingie' that everyone keeps referring to in the rule book...

imweasel wrote:I'm still trying to find the definition of this 'turret thingie' that everyone keeps referring to in the rule book...

I'm wondering why people are persisting in trying to make this a rules issue.

It's not. Again, there are no rules in the rulebook covering conversions. It's entirely at the discretion of you and your opponent, or whoever is running the event in the case of organised play. And in the vast majority of cases, so long as what you are doing is not blatantly abusive, other players won't care.

So let's not continue to try to make this a bigger issue than it actually is, hmm?

This has be an interesting thread so far, I've not joined in because there are really no rules that you must correctly assemble you miniature. Most people use their common sense and have the models the correct way up and built (roughly) the same as on the box. However some things do get moved about, If you've got a hard back copy of the rule book and flick to page 278-279 you'll see many Land Raiders some with the sponson to the front some to the back.

To be fair the ones with the guns to the front will get an advantage, some of the time, but its negligible. I think the only time that you should complain is if they're both on the same side.

So, thread photo bomb

Was a nice morning in Brisbane today(for a change!! ) , so some gratuitous photo bombing in thread..

It's fairly clear to me is a gentlemans agreement, or 'Claytons Contract' - I have read long and hard - can't find a specific answer.

On with Pics

Actually, your 'as per instructions' shot has the turret ring plate upside down. The vent side is used for the Predator. The hatch side is used for the Razorback.

insaniak -Actually, your 'as per instructions' shot has the turret ring plate upside down. The vent side is used for the Predator. The hatch side is used for the Razorback.

*Bangs head on wall* Lol - yeah - but it is a nice day today isn't it?

I have my 3 LRs with the sponsons in the forward mounts.

It doesn't matter, you can get called for modeling for advantage either way, so who cares? Your just flipping a piece supplied that can be placed either way.

If you model the gun on the front end, you gain what, half an inch of range? Whoopee.

If you model the gun on the back, you can gain a 3+ coversave if all your opponent can see from the tank is the turret.

This issue shouldn't even be around, but it just shows how bad some WAAC players are when trying to find fault with your forces.

juraigamer wrote:This issue shouldn't even be around, but it just shows how bad some WAAC players are when trying to find fault with your forces.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with being a 'WAAC' gamer. People questioning what is and isn't acceptable modeling-wise is simply a side-effect of GW's refusal to write rules that address the situation, either be stipulating what is acceptable or by creating a system that render it irrelevant.

So, please, let's try to avoid negatively labeling people just for having concerns about how the rules are supposed to work.

Jurai - no, the turret is still part of a facing, so may not give a 3+ - if all you can see if the turret youre probably on a 4+, but not a 3+

I thought it was only hull that had to be hidden. But maybe I'm wrong. I didn't see anything in vehicles and cover saves portion about hull only (just "hull down").

I drive my Razorbacks backwards, to get more range on the weapons since the turrets are now placed on the front edge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I forgot to insert /sarcasm)

d-usa wrote:I drive my Razorbacks backwards, to get more range on the weapons since the turrets are now placed on the front edge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I forgot to insert /sarcasm)

The funny thing is, that is a completely legal move

Yeah, but exposing your sweet, sweet rear armor isn't the smartest of moves. Mmm, nougaty core of marines.

-cgmckenzie

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:I'm still trying to find the definition of this 'turret thingie' that everyone keeps referring to in the rule book...

I'm wondering why people are persisting in trying to make this a rules issue.

It's not. Again, there are no rules in the rulebook covering conversions. It's entirely at the discretion of you and your opponent, or whoever is running the event in the case of organised play. And in the vast majority of cases, so long as what you are doing is not blatantly abusive, other players won't care.

So let's not continue to try to make this a bigger issue than it actually is, hmm?

Just to add to that point a bit, it GW has also slacked off when it comes to defining how a weapon is mounted. The rulebook lies to you and says on pg 59 where it says if you refer to the vehicles entry it will tell you if each weapon is hull mounted, turret mounted, sponsons mounted or pintle mounted. The problem is they fethed the dog on that with most of the codex's. Look at the space marine or IG codex, if you go by those then nothing has a turret. Take a look at the tau empire codex, it explicitly and in great detail defines exactly how every vehicles weapons are mounted.

It's a grey area that comes down to your opponent giving a crap or a tournament organizer laying down the law.

A good example is the forgeworld manticore vs the GW manticore, one has a turret, the other doesn't. Would someone buying the forgeworld one instead of gw's considered to be "buying" for advantage? It's possible, but it could also just be that it's a cooler model. I just built my first stormraven without the turret because I didn't like how it looked. I instead installed the twin linked lascannon where the headlights are supposed to go, I probably gained an inch or two of range but now I only have a 45 degree arc of fire so I'm not sure how advantageous it is.

I converted my chimeras so the turret was back more and the hatch was in the front. I wanted more of a APC look and no one really minds at my LGS.