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.

RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The gun is on a 360 degree turret, and the side armor is the same as the front armor.

There's no advantage in range no matter where the turret is placed.

Seriously? Look.... so let's say you have the gun in the back. If you pivot sideways you get an inch of range and risk showing your rear. If you completely reverse, you gain 2 inches.

If you put the gun in the middle, you're an inch ahead of where it normally is. Meaning I'd have to turn my proper one sideways (and risk a rear hit from my flanks) just to be able to match your new range. The only time having it in the back has better range is if you're completely showing your rear to them, meaning you die to bolter fire now.

How is the ability to get extra range without risking your rear armor not an advantage? Putting it in the middle gives you the extra range of turning sideways without turning sideways.

How is that game breaking? Why is an extra inch on an AV11 coffin so OP?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
How is that game breaking? Why is an extra inch on an AV11 coffin so OP?

MFA doesn't have to be game-breakingly overpowered to be MFA.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
How is that game breaking? Why is an extra inch on an AV11 coffin so OP?

SJ

If I model all of my TH/SS termies lying on their stomachs so that it's easier to hide them out of LOS, and put them on smaller bases so I can DS them more easily, would that be considered MFA? It's less than an inch of difference, and terminators are far from being a powerful unit for their points. It's not like there are many scenarios that it'll come up as an issue, right? What are my chances of that change making any difference in my game? And maybe I think they look cooler that way, doing a "tactical crawl sneak advance".

Assume now it comes up in a game where my terminators are a turn away from charging your army but are behind an inch high wall, and while your entire army would normally be able to fire on them you can't, because all my models are an inch shorter. Would you say it's fair, because I was smart enough to model all my terminators like that? If you think it's okay for me to model them like that then I suggest we just end this discussion now, as we're not going to get anywhere.

Now take a razorback being 49" away from being able to fire a lascannon at your exposed warlord. In any other game, you're fine. But because this one specific fellow modeled his tanks incorrectly, he gets to shoot an extra inch further than the game would normally allow.

In a game system that is already pretty unbalanced and has all sorts of discrepancies in the rules, you need to maintain certain standards of equal play. If you take 10 marine armies, there should be no mechanical difference between any of them. If my razorback can shoot your razorback, yours should also be able to shoot mine. There should never be an instance where two identical units perform differently, all because someone modeled differently. I'm not saying that it's bad to do unique modeling.... I highly encourage you at least do some work to make your favorite units look cooler. But at no point should the work you do modeling have an impact on mechanics.

I have always put the vents on the Razorback towards the back. I always saw them as cooling vents that would allow for heat dissipation and the last thing you would want is for the weapon to absorb most of that heat as you are fighting xenos.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
How is that game breaking? Why is an extra inch on an AV11 coffin so OP?

SJ

Spoiler:

If I model all of my TH/SS termies lying on their stomachs so that it's easier to hide them out of LOS, and put them on smaller bases so I can DS them more easily, would that be considered MFA? It's less than an inch of difference, and terminators are far from being a powerful unit for their points. It's not like there are many scenarios that it'll come up as an issue, right? What are my chances of that change making any difference in my game? And maybe I think they look cooler that way, doing a "tactical crawl sneak advance".

Assume now it comes up in a game where my terminators are a turn away from charging your army but are behind an inch high wall, and while your entire army would normally be able to fire on them you can't, because all my models are an inch shorter. Would you say it's fair, because I was smart enough to model all my terminators like that? If you think it's okay for me to model them like that then I suggest we just end this discussion now, as we're not going to get anywhere.

Now take a razorback being 49" away from being able to fire a lascannon at your exposed warlord. In any other game, you're fine. But because this one specific fellow modeled his tanks incorrectly, he gets to shoot an extra inch further than the game would normally allow.

In a game system that is already pretty unbalanced and has all sorts of discrepancies in the rules, you need to maintain certain standards of equal play. If you take 10 marine armies, there should be no mechanical difference between any of them. If my razorback can shoot your razorback, yours should also be able to shoot mine. There should never be an instance where two identical units perform differently, all because someone modeled differently. I'm not saying that it's bad to do unique modeling.... I highly encourage you at least do some work to make your favorite units look cooler. But at no point should the work you do modeling have an impact on mechanics.

Your pint is a slippery slope argument, which is invalidated by the existence of Immolators, those Sister "Razorbacks" with turrets all the way at the front (not in the middle, as the OP proposed).

SJ

 TheCustomLime wrote:
RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

I disagree. I wouldn't call that a citadel miniature. Its got the same components but lacks the form. That is just a plastic sculpture. GW dos'nt sell 'miniatures' they sell 'kits'and the kits include instructions. failure to assemble to kit per the instructions and I don't feel you arrive at a 'citadel miniature'. But I digress. This is a Theseus Ship argument, thereis no right answer.

Its kind of a moot point any way. The language in the BRB about citadel miniatures does not command their use, it only infers it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Your pint is a slippery slope argument, which is invalidated by the existence of Immolators, those Sister "Razorbacks" with turrets all the way at the front (not in the middle, as the OP proposed).

What does the Immolator have to do with anything? It's an entirely separate unit that has nothing to do with the Razorback. You might as well talk about how you should be able to turn the sponsons on your Land Raider into a 360* turret because LRBTs have a turret.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
How is that game breaking? Why is an extra inch on an AV11 coffin so OP?

MFA doesn't have to be game-breakingly overpowered to be MFA.

MFA also means that you are modeling specifically to gain an advantage. If you make a custom model that was simply made to look cool, even if you got an advantage out of it during a game, you didn't MFA. People usually try to play the rules as if they weren't custom, but sometimes that isn't possible and you have to play the model as is.

In most cases, this shouldn't be a problem and you just adjust you tactics accordingly to the quirks of the models. The real problem is when it becomes egregious like the slippery slope example where the TH/SS terminators are laying flat on their stomach when they can hardly sit down in their suit. This is most likely a sign that you have a That Guy in your group and he needs a talking to.

MFA determination can only really be done on a case by case basis and if you feel a model may be too custom for your group, talk to them. If you are making a custom model, do it for looks and story first, while trying to keep functionality (turret travel range) intact.

If you are making custom models just to get an advantage and win games, that is MFA.

Was about to say, the Immolator's turret sits pretty much at the front!
Plus, how many IFV's do you see with turrets right at the back? Virtually none. They're either right at the front of the vehicle or smack dab in the middle. Engines take up a lot of space..

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

I disagree. I wouldn't call that a citadel miniature. Its got the same components but lacks the form. That is just a plastic sculpture. GW dos'nt sell 'miniatures' they sell 'kits'and the kits include instructions. failure to assemble to kit per the instructions and I don't feel you arrive at a 'citadel miniature'. But I digress. This is a Theseus Ship argument, thereis no right answer.

Its kind of a moot point any way. The language in the BRB about citadel miniatures does not command their use, it only infers it.

Yes, it does. Models are defined as "Citadel Miniatures". That is, Citadel brand miniatures.

Ref:

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops...,"

Therefore, Victoria Lamb guardsmen are not valid models since they are not Citadel brand miniatures. There is also no requirement for a Citadel miniature to be assembled in a particular way for it to be a valid model. The only check is this: "Is it a miniature sold under the Citadel brand? If yes, it is a model".

i considered putting my land raider sponsors on the front but i did not because the illustrations look different. hope that helps.

It fits either way. Go for it. I had someone once tell me land raiders could only have the the side guns mounted on the rear most hatch on the side when there are 2 options and they both fit equally well. I just stared at him for a bit and he dropped it.

You are telling me with all the different chapters and traditions that there isn't one who has their razorbacks set up differently for some chapter reason? Some chapters don't even follow the Codex Astartes.

From a practicality stand point, Space Marines are one of dumb for settng the turret so far back. Very few modern day combat vehicles are as mis-balance alas the Razorback. It should have front AV12 to off-set the rear-heavy load of the turret. Center-mounted would be much better.

SJ

Whenever you look at a tank model, you can't assume that just because the tank is hollow inside doesn't mean that in actuality there is no equipment, ammo, or engine. You need to consider what's going on inside a razorback.

First off, we'll assume that some sort of operation and loading mechanism has to be below the gun itself, but this isn't modeled because you don't see the inside of a razorback. Now if you look at a razorback from the side, where are the doors? If the gun is in the center, it's in the same position as the side doors, meaning you'd have to put the operation mechanisms and a large stack of ammo directly in the center of the tank or you'd block a door, and even then you'll only have a narrow gap to fit the men through to unload out of either of the sides. If the gun is at the rear however, you're completely clear of either side door, and you can put the loading and operation mechanisms off to one of the sides, against a wall.

If we assume that it takes up a third of the rear of the tank (hence the reduced capacity), where can it all possibly fit? Assuming that you keep the ammo and machinery at least partially under the gun, your only option would be to have it at the rear up against one side of the tank. Putting your gun directly in the center of your tank blocks access to your doors.

So here's the compromise I'll agree to. Put your gun blocking your doors, and I'll let you have your extra inch of shooting, but your men can't fit out the side doors now.

There are FW illustrations of the interior of all of the Rhino chassis vehicles, including the many Razorback variants.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There are FW illustrations of the interior of all of the Rhino chassis vehicles, including the many Razorback variants.

SJ

Did FW model their razorbacks with the guns at the front, or at the back? And I did a few google searches and genuinely didn't come up with any pictures, can you point me at what you're saying? Does the FW representation not have the interior of the passenger cabin occupied by anything?

An interesting assessment kingbobbito, but I think I can throw a wrench into your argument.

The weapons that the Razorback can take are self contained and can even be man portable. The man portable variants such as the Lascannon, simply need a battery to operate and thus have very little extra overhead and Heavy Bolter ammo usage should be comparable to the man portable variant so a similar amount of ammo per gun. The motors are most likely self contained in the turret itself and only slightly into the cabin. This will cause some loss of space but not near the full amount.

The real reason I can see for the loss of crew space is due to the remote-control station that is used to control the turret inside. The size of the station means that while there would be enough room to move to each door, there wont be enough seats for the space marines inside to be transported safely compared to a Rhino.

I personally find that the turret forward design is much more aesthetically pleasing. In regards to the modelling for advantage concerns, I can think of a couple of options.

1: Keep the hatches unglued so, if your opponent insists, you can always reverse them and put the turret at the back.

2: Always be willing to measure range and line of sight from the weapons original position.

The way I figure it, if someone is willing to treat their model as the original version, then their modelling changes are purely stylistic rather than modelling for advantage and there's nothing to complain about.

Nilok wrote:An interesting assessment kingbobbito, but I think I can throw a wrench into your argument.

The weapons that the Razorback can take are self contained and can even be man portable. The man portable variants such as the Lascannon, simply need a battery to operate and thus have very little extra overhead and Heavy Bolter ammo usage should be comparable to the man portable variant so a similar amount of ammo per gun. The motors are most likely self contained in the turret itself and only slightly into the cabin. This will cause some loss of space but not near the full amount.

The real reason I can see for the loss of crew space is due to the remote-control station that is used to control the turret inside. The size of the station means that while there would be enough room to move to each door, there wont be enough seats for the space marines inside to be transported safely compared to a Rhino.

I could definitely see the way you explained, although I'd like to imagine that they'd load the tank with more ammo than they'd give to a man in the field, as a tank has a longer life expectancy, plus the tank doesn't have as much of a limitation on how much it can carry as a marine would. Better to have too much ammo than not enough, eh?

I sort of pictured it as (crappy drawing)

rhino interior D=door
_D_____
[...............]
[...............]
[_D____]

razorback interior, G=gun mount and servos, C=computers, A=ammo
_D_____
[.......CAA]
[.......G.....]
[_D____]

I obviously went for art in college.

Jefffar wrote:I personally find that the turret forward design is much more aesthetically pleasing. In regards to the modelling for advantage concerns, I can think of a couple of options.

1: Keep the hatches unglued so, if your opponent insists, you can always reverse them and put the turret at the back.

2: Always be willing to measure range and line of sight from the weapons original position.

The way I figure it, if someone is willing to treat their model as the original version, then their modelling changes are purely stylistic rather than modelling for advantage and there's nothing to complain about.

Finally someone that agrees to a reasonable solution! For some reason people would rather argue that adding an inch to you range doesn't change anything instead of just agreeing to subtract that extra inch when they measure
I personally keep all my hatches unglued actually, so I can run it as a rhino or razorback, and so that when it's destroyed you can just lift the back off to represent that, maybe have smoke coming out.

I don't care about the extra range on a lascannon but on a h. bolter it would make more of a diff. I just run mine sometimes with them front forward and sometimes rear mounted. I like to change things up.

I hate everything always being the same.

So, what do the model instructions and RAW say, when I assembly my Razorback with the turret way in the front, but with an Ork head poking out of the copula (especially a grinning Ork head, as he had the kunnin' to gain a range advantage on those stoopid humies) of my looted vehicle?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

I disagree. I wouldn't call that a citadel miniature. Its got the same components but lacks the form. That is just a plastic sculpture. GW dos'nt sell 'miniatures' they sell 'kits'and the kits include instructions. failure to assemble to kit per the instructions and I don't feel you arrive at a 'citadel miniature'. But I digress. This is a Theseus Ship argument, thereis no right answer.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. So if a model is not built 100% to the instructions it is no longer a citadel miniature? So my imperial knight isn't a citadel miniature because I glued the swivel shield bit down when it said not to? And don't even get started on models basing, i suppose sand invalidates a models "citadel miniature hood"

 cheapbuster wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

I disagree. I wouldn't call that a citadel miniature. Its got the same components but lacks the form. That is just a plastic sculpture. GW dos'nt sell 'miniatures' they sell 'kits'and the kits include instructions. failure to assemble to kit per the instructions and I don't feel you arrive at a 'citadel miniature'. But I digress. This is a Theseus Ship argument, thereis no right answer.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. So if a model is not built 100% to the instructions it is no longer a citadel miniature? So my imperial knight isn't a citadel miniature because I glued the swivel shield bit down when it said not to? And don't even get started on models basing, i suppose sand invalidates a models "citadel miniature hood"

If I take the sprues, run then through a blender, melt the pieces down and cast the plastic into round marbles which I then glue to bases, am I using a Citadel Miniature? I would say no. Why? Because I didn't follow the directions when assembling the kit. Where do we draw the line? Most people wouldn't care if you slightly repose an arm. Most people will care if you just cluster glue a pile of chopped up bits to a base. The most common line seems to be drawn at the WYSIWIG level... i.e., so long as the options are represented, pose isn't important. From a strict rules standpoint though, the line is really drawn at the "did you follow the directions exactly" level.

HIWPI - I play WYSIWIG and expect my opponents to do the same. It's simply polite gaming. However, in a tournament environment, I'm never upset when a TO tells me I can't use a conversion.

Ultimately, I think conversion = ANY deviation from the included instructions. A reposing of arms or legs is a simple conversion. You've created something totally new. Sure, you used all Citadel parts to do so, but it's no longer a Citadel miniature you could find in any catalog.

Also, sand wouldn't invalidate the "Citadel Miniature-hood" of the model as GW sells sand specifically for basing purposes. Just don't get caught using that cheap, aftermarket sand.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 cheapbuster wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
RAW, there are no rules about assembling Citadel miniatures. To be a valid model for gaming purposes they must be a miniature produced under the Citadel brand. That is all. You can glue a Leman Russ so that all of the parts are stacked one on top of another. It is still a valid model.

I disagree. I wouldn't call that a citadel miniature. Its got the same components but lacks the form. That is just a plastic sculpture. GW dos'nt sell 'miniatures' they sell 'kits'and the kits include instructions. failure to assemble to kit per the instructions and I don't feel you arrive at a 'citadel miniature'. But I digress. This is a Theseus Ship argument, thereis no right answer.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. So if a model is not built 100% to the instructions it is no longer a citadel miniature? So my imperial knight isn't a citadel miniature because I glued the swivel shield bit down when it said not to? And don't even get started on models basing, i suppose sand invalidates a models "citadel miniature hood"

If I take the sprues, run then through a blender, melt the pieces down and cast the plastic into round marbles which I then glue to bases, am I using a Citadel Miniature? I would say no. Why? Because I didn't follow the directions when assembling the kit. Where do we draw the line? Most people wouldn't care if you slightly repose an arm. Most people will care if you just cluster glue a pile of chopped up bits to a base. The most common line seems to be drawn at the WYSIWIG level... i.e., so long as the options are represented, pose isn't important. From a strict rules standpoint though, the line is really drawn at the "did you follow the directions exactly" level.

HIWPI - I play WYSIWIG and expect my opponents to do the same. It's simply polite gaming. However, in a tournament environment, I'm never upset when a TO tells me I can't use a conversion.

Ultimately, I think conversion = ANY deviation from the included instructions. A reposing of arms or legs is a simple conversion. You've created something totally new. Sure, you used all Citadel parts to do so, but it's no longer a Citadel miniature you could find in any catalog.

Also, sand wouldn't invalidate the "Citadel Miniature-hood" of the model as GW sells sand specifically for basing purposes. Just don't get caught using that cheap, aftermarket sand.

I disagree with your premise based on an old story which had some similarities. A guy came into a Games Workshop 40k tournament with some papercraft drop pods. They looked quite good, but the TOs told him the rule that all models have to have at least be 15% Games Workshop product to be used, to which he turn the drop pods over to reveal they were all made from official 40k product boxes. After much deliberation, they reluctantly allowed him to use the papercraft models by technicality.

Your example of taking the plastic and melting it down into a ball may be the most extreme example and may qualify as recycling at that point, but it does raise a questions of when something stops being something. If it is assembled wrong does it stop being a Citadel product? Is the plastic itself distinct enough to qualify as a Citadel product? This becomes a much more existential question that I doubt we will be able to find definitive.

If someone took the trouble to melt down 40k models just to turn it into 3d printer filament to print better versions of said models, I would just be impressed and would allowed them.

Most people will care if you just cluster glue a pile of chopped up bits to a base.

I swear I've seen a couple of those in my opponent's Ork army, didn't help him win the game, but we all had a good laugh at the Grots trying to hold it together.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its kind of a moot point any way. The language in the BRB about citadel miniatures does not command their use, it only infers it.

Yes, it does. Models are defined as "Citadel Miniatures". That is, Citadel brand miniatures.

Ref:

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops...,"

Therefore, Victoria Lamb guardsmen are not valid models since they are not Citadel brand miniatures. There is also no requirement for a Citadel miniature to be assembled in a particular way for it to be a valid model. The only check is this: "Is it a miniature sold under the Citadel brand? If yes, it is a model".

The statement "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’" is informative, not permissive and not exclusionary. If being true does not directly give you permission to use Citadel miniatures, it only infers that permission. It being true does not require other statesmen, such as " Victoria Lamb guardsmen used to play game of Warhammer 40,000 are also 'models' to be false.

There is no other definition for the term "model" in the rulebook so we must assume that the term only refers to Citadel miniatures. If the rulebook hinted at other kinds of miniatures then the argument could be made that the definition is actually incomplete.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There is no other definition for the term "model" in the rulebook so we must assume that the term only refers to Citadel miniatures. If the rulebook hinted at other kinds of miniatures then the argument could be made that the definition is actually incomplete.

Except, that's not a definition of 'model' either. Its a statement that citadel miniatures will be refereed to as models. Not that models are citadel miniatures. As I said earlier it infers such a relationship but i does not command one.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There is no other definition for the term "model" in the rulebook so we must assume that the term only refers to Citadel miniatures. If the rulebook hinted at other kinds of miniatures then the argument could be made that the definition is actually incomplete.

Except, that's not a definition of 'model' either. Its a statement that citadel miniatures will be refereed to as models. Not that models are citadel miniatures. As I said earlier it infers such a relationship but i does not command one.

But then, if "citadel miniatures will be refereed to as 'models' ", does that not mean that every time the BrB says "models", is that not 'citadel miniatures'?
Therefore it cannot be 'Victoria Lamb guardsmen'.

It does not deny the fact you could use 'Victoria Lamb guardsmen' to "be refereed to as 'models' ", but it does not give such permission either. And then the permissive ruleset comes up.