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.

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