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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So we are still ignoring that there is an easy way for the OP to modify his razorback to look cool and still have it be "stock" to all intents and purposes in regards to the game rules and posters are unwilling to let him use those ways?

As I said, no one would admit to it on here.

Will you please stop making up ridiculous straw man arguments so you can "win" at forums? Nobody here is arguing about an aesthetic-only conversion that follows all the rules of the standard model (including where you measure weapon range from, etc). The issue here is a case of MFA where someone moves the turret to the front of the tank and then takes advantage of the extra range (very important on a template weapon) that the new position gives.

I have no problem with it in friendly play. In competitive play, I'd expect you to measure from where the turret is supposed to be.

Modeling it his way purely for the cool look and measuring from the original position is not as you claim MFA, it is modeling for coolness.
Your strawman so you can win that the new position is where he would measure from is false. I specifically said to measure from the original position (marking it in some way would be a good idea).
Moving it to look cool and then measureing from the original position is just not MFA in my book. You aren't going to change my mind on that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Modeling it his way purely for the cool look and measuring from the original position is not as you claim MFA, it is modeling for coolness.
Your strawman so you can win that the new position is where he would measure from is false. I specifically said to measure from the original position (marking it in some way would be a good idea).
Moving it to look cool and then measureing from the original position is just not MFA in my book. You aren't going to change my mind on that.

Where did the OP say he would measure from where the turret is "supposed to be"? I can't seem to find it. All I can find (from the OP) is the inference that he would be measuring from the new location, and not just because it looks better forward.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Modeling it his way purely for the cool look and measuring from the original position is not as you claim MFA, it is modeling for coolness.

Are you deliberately trolling now? I very clearly said that making a cool model and measuring from the standard position isn't MFA. In fact I even explicitly stated in the other thread that this a the test for MFA, and if you're willing to measure based on the standard model it's a sign that it's a legitimate conversion and NOT MFA.

Your strawman so you can win that the new position is where he would measure from is false.

Sigh. You realize the OP clearly talked about measuring from the new position, right?

Moving it to look cool and then measureing from the original position is just not MFA in my book. You aren't going to change my mind on that.

And, once again, this is a strawman you have invented so you can "win" the forum argument. Nobody holds the position you are arguing against.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Modeling it his way purely for the cool look and measuring from the original position is not as you claim MFA, it is modeling for coolness.

But that is not what the OP wanted to do. Have another read...

 Walnuts wrote:
So I want to build a razorback with heavy flamers, but I don't want the turret to be at the back end of the tank. It's stupid, every other flame tank in the game has a more forward facing or central turret, and those have 12" range too!
I feel like if you put flamers on that back turret I'd have to get the damn thing sideways just to get the bulk of the teardrop over a unit. That's dumb.

He clearly wants to move the turret forward on the model to get better placement of the teardrop over a unit without having to turn the model sideways. Even if he also wanted to move the turret or ascetics his desire for better teardrop placement is what makes this MFA because he won' be measuring from the original turret position.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your strawman so you can win that the new position is where he would measure from is false. I specifically said to measure from the original position (marking it in some way would be a good idea).

No, you originally said you would have no problem with what the OP suggested. Look again, he did not suggest measuring from the original position. He wanted to measure from the new position.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Moving it to look cool and then measureing from the original position is just not MFA in my book. You aren't going to change my mind on that.

No one has said it is. In fact that is exactly what nkelsch said he has seen at tourneys as doing what the OP originally wanted was considered cheating at those tourneys.

Peregrine is right in that you posted your opinion and when some one else disagreed with your opinion you responded with an absurd and inappropriate comparison, often called a straw man argument.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Where did the OP say he would measure from where the turret is "supposed to be"? I can't seem to find it. All I can find (from the OP) is the inference that he would be measuring from the new location, and not just because it looks better forward.

This was a suggestion that I had made in regards to players who wanted to do it for appearances.
The OP actually wanted it for the "advantage/disadvantage", I spoke against doing it for that reason.
Peregrine's response with an absurd and inappropriate comparison, often called a straw man argument, none withstanding is unrelated to the topic at hand.
Either way, I would have no problem because any advantage/disadvantage is just not game breaking enough to me to create that confrontation in a friendly game. Feel free to call me an "easy opponent".

 EVIL INC wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Where did the OP say he would measure from where the turret is "supposed to be"? I can't seem to find it. All I can find (from the OP) is the inference that he would be measuring from the new location, and not just because it looks better forward.

This was a suggestion that I had made in regards to players who wanted to do it for appearances.

Yes, you did. But you did it after you picked a fight, and after you suggested that gaining the advantage is not MFA if there is also a disadvantage.

The OP actually wanted it for the "advantage/disadvantage", I spoke against doing it for that reason.

No, that's not true. You've said you would 'have no problem with it'. While not a rousing endorsement its certainly not a denouncement.

Peregrine's response with an absurd and inappropriate comparison, often called a straw man argument, none withstanding is unrelated to the topic at hand.

No, Peregine made a gross generalization when he claimed you post a straw man argument in every thread. As readers of this thread we don't know if that is true but at the time of his, albeit off topic, post you had in fact posted a straw man argument in this thread and accused other members of this forum of taking a position none had taken.

Either way, I would have no problem because any advantage/disadvantage is just not game breaking enough to me to create that confrontation in a friendly game. Feel free to call me an "easy opponent".

Neither the question, nor any of the answers denouncing this tactic have specified if this tactic was for use in a friendly game. I don't think any one is going to call you an easy opponent. If they've read this thread I'm sure they have other words in mind for you.

Actually, it was not who picked a fight. I was the victom on topic being attacked because I had the gall to put forth a reasonable way to handle the situation where the OP and his opponents could be happy.

Telling someone something is not a good idea (MFA ( in this I mean an ACTUAL MFA) does not mean that I am not going to let them use it. The two statements do not deny one another.
peregrine has been famous for stawman arguments if you wish to discuss that, use the PM function.

yes, I am well aware of what my opponants call me. A few of the include easy win, tough gamer, good (or bad) tactician depending on if they worked lol. VERY often good sport (this last because I play for fun and not to WAAC even to the point of turning a blind eye to what I see as possible shenanigans because I give everyone the benefit of the doubt

To the OP, lets try to slide the others back on topic...
Do you every run allies? Maybe guard or inquisition? The heavy flamers are up front on their vehicles and you can even get 2 of them on a single vehicle. Mayhaps a hellhound for some torrent fun?
The thicker front armor may help (of course, the thinner side armor may also hurt). just an idea that you might consider.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I have no problem with it in friendly play. In competitive play, I'd expect you to measure from where the turret is supposed to be.

Where exactly is the turret for a weapon upgrade that there is no model for supposed to be?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Actually, it was not who picked a fight. I was the victom on topic being attacked because I had the gall to put forth a reasonable way to handle the situation where the OP and his opponents could be happy. .

I woudl suggest you go back and read the thread again, because that is not what happened.

Either way, this train wreck has gone on for about long enough, the original question has been answered, and the OP has already declared what he has decided to do as a result. Moving on.