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.

So, I'm a pretty avid tourney goer, and somehow for the first time last weekend I ran into a modeled upgrade I didn't think was quite kosher. Now it wasn't game changing and my opponent was sure about it, so I let it go. But I'd like to get a rules perspective on it. I chatted with friends afterwards, and apparently this isn't too uncommon to see done, so this might just be me.

The entry in the codex states you may "May replace twin linked heavy bolters with:

and then a list of options, one of which is "Lascannon and twin-linked plasma gun"

Now my opponent had it modeled with a single lascannon in the rear turret spot, and TL plasmaguns in the front pintle mount location. I understand the reasoning: it's easier to model, it's easier to remove one for a weapon destroyed. However, I'm not so sure that it's legal. You're replacing the turret weapon, so in my mind, both weapons go in the place of the turret weapon. The obvious gain from this is that your TL plasmagun is 1-2 inches closer modeled in the front pintle location.

Your take?

Oooh. Hm. I'm going to say it's illegal.

The thing is, the las/plas is supposed to replace the Razorback's turret. Not to mention the fact that the plasmagun does get additional range.

I have not got around to modeling my own but I going to find away to geto both on the turret.

That said, I would not mind playing against the plasma on a forward pintle.

In a friendly game, I would have no problem with it. I can see SM putting different weaponry on different mounts.

In a tourney or competitive game, I think it would be a problem.

I would say nice conversion and then tell them that since it is supposed to be a turret weapon to measure distances from the lascannon mount for both weapons.

Hmmm, bet it looks sweet.
But don't you measure from the turret for distances and such-like anyway?
nevermind

Since there are not any defined "Weapon Hardpoints" and the Razorback does not come with a single Lascannon and Twin Linked Plasma gun, there is no information on what the "Correct" way to model it actually is.

With that said, The setup you encountered is just fine, as well as many other setups that are possible.

If my opponent wanted to mount the TL plasma gun on the front of the hull as a hull mounted weapon, there is no issue, if he wanted to mount them on either side of the front tracks, again no issue.

Since the placement of the weapons is not defined, I think its a perfectly reasonable placement of the weapons. It actually costs them range in some circumstances since if it was turret mounted they could pivot the vehicle sideways, turn the turret towards the target and GAIN an inch or so. Placing them in the gunners hatch or elsewhere on the hull is fine, and from some angles will cost them some inches(if they fire sideways accross the other gunner hatch, or if imobilized and they fire backwards accross the hull) and it is helpful to be able to remove the weapons when they are destroyed.

I saw a guy that modeled a crane attachment with a reach that extends 6" past the hull and swivels to make the plasma guns double tap range effectly 18" -- thats modeling for advantage and beyond the spirit of the rules.

Mephistoles1 wrote:Since the placement of the weapons is not defined, I think its a perfectly reasonable placement of the weapons. It actually costs them range in some circumstances since if it was turret mounted they could pivot the vehicle sideways, turn the turret towards the target and GAIN an inch or so. Placing them in the gunners hatch or elsewhere on the hull is fine, and from some angles will cost them some inches(if they fire sideways accross the other gunner hatch, or if imobilized and they fire backwards accross the hull) and it is helpful to be able to remove the weapons when they are destroyed.

I saw a guy that modeled a crane attachment with a reach that extends 6" past the hull and swivels to make the plasma guns double tap range effectly 18" -- thats modeling for advantage and beyond the spirit of the rules.

Thats the crux of this I think, is the placement not defined? Your placement is to "replace the heavy bolters". I'd assumed replace means this goes in the place where the heavy bolters are, which is the turret itself.

Apparently this isn't as uncommon/unaccepted as I thought, so I guess I'll get used to it.

Depends. Do your LRC hurricane bolters go on the set of doors closest to the front, or the doors farthest from the front? I'm pretty sure I've seen it both ways. As far as this setup, I would have no problem with it, even at a tourny. If that extra 1-2" makes the difference in the game, then I was obviously not playing well enough.

On the whole it's probably not that big a deal, but what if it's on a BA Razorback? Suddenly the RF range for the Plasmas is 26"(aprox). And if the RB contains a RAS that's was a free upgrade. I can't say it's truly modeling for advantage, since there is no current official kit, but based on precedent those plasmas belong in the same turret as the lascannon.

Put them where you want, but measure from the turret. Besides, it's not like it's all that hard to convert a standard RB turret to have las on one side and plasma on the other. A little filing, a little drilling and you're done.

Sanguinary Dan wrote:On the whole it's probably not that big a deal, but what if it's on a BA Razorback? Suddenly the RF range for the Plasmas is 26"(aprox). And if the RB contains a RAS that's was a free upgrade. I can't say it's truly modeling for advantage, since there is no current official kit, but based on precedent those plasmas belong in the same turret as the lascannon.

Put them where you want, but measure from the turret. Besides, it's not like it's all that hard to convert a standard RB turret to have las on one side and plasma on the other. A little filing, a little drilling and you're done.

Just to clarify, this wasn't for a project I was considering doing or anything. I personally feel that they belong on the turret by the rules, however, having seen it played otherways at a wysiwyg event made me wonder if I was the crazy one, or if other people saw both interpretations of where to model as valid (which apparently they do).

I'll still be putting mine (if i run them that is) on the turret, but I won't be surprised if I see opponents not.

Thanks for the good input guys!

targetawg wrote:
Thats the crux of this I think, is the placement not defined? Your placement is to "replace the heavy bolters". I'd assumed replace means this goes in the place where the heavy bolters are, which is the turret itself.

Apparently this isn't as uncommon/unaccepted as I thought, so I guess I'll get used to it.

This is true, but most people agree that the lascannon and the TL plasma gun are seperate weapon systems, so it doesnt bother me if they are in fact, seperate. Since vehicles without POTMS can only select one target, it doesnt change the operation of the shooting. I'm a pretty laid back gamer though, and I just appreciate that they took the effort to make a model that is not represented outside of forgeworld, and did it in an interesting way that also increases gameplay options(being able to remove the weapon when it is destroyed).

If I had a conversion like that and I ran into someone who thought it should be turret mounted I'd have no problem measuring everything from the turret, but it seems like that would be a case of the fix being more complicated than the possible advantage.

Mephistoles1 wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Thats the crux of this I think, is the placement not defined? Your placement is to "replace the heavy bolters". I'd assumed replace means this goes in the place where the heavy bolters are, which is the turret itself.

Apparently this isn't as uncommon/unaccepted as I thought, so I guess I'll get used to it.

This is true, but most people agree that the lascannon and the TL plasma gun are seperate weapon systems, so it doesnt bother me if they are in fact, seperate. Since vehicles without POTMS can only select one target, it doesnt change the operation of the shooting. I'm a pretty laid back gamer though, and I just appreciate that they took the effort to make a model that is not represented outside of forgeworld, and did it in an interesting way that also increases gameplay options(being able to remove the weapon when it is destroyed).

If I had a conversion like that and I ran into someone who thought it should be turret mounted I'd have no problem measuring everything from the turret, but it seems like that would be a case of the fix being more complicated than the possible advantage.

True, I'm only talking about this for tourney applications where things need to be 100% correct, in a casual since this is beyond a minor quibble.

And it's not just that most people agree that they're separate weapon systems, they actually are, it was clarified in an FAQ that they are treated separately for weapon destroyed results.

The reason this came up in our game was that I saw it, said it's a neat conversion, and then said "yea and you can just measure ranges from the turret, easy solution!" and got a "what are you talking about. I'm measuring from the plasmaguns, not the turret, they're separate systems".

I let it go because it wasn't game changing in this instance (only one razorback of this variety) but was just pretty surprised as I'd never heard of/thought of this as an option before.

Hmm, thats good to know that it was FAQ'd. I have two that I built (both on turret) and I still ocasionally run into people that think it is one weapon system. Guess I need to print a new set of FAQs.

It's funny how we all percieve things differently and don't really realize it until we encounter someone who sees the same issue in an entirely different light. I always make sure to run anything non standard by an organizer first, even something as small as this issue. So the response can be : "I ran it by the TO, and he said to measure from the weapon mount," rather than "I do it this way, deal with it."

Mephistoles1 wrote:Hmm, thats good to know that it was FAQ'd. I have two that I built (both on turret) and I still ocasionally run into people that think it is one weapon system. Guess I need to print a new set of FAQs.

It would be better if it was one weapon. It's now harder to fire both in the same turn, especially for non-BA.

targetawg wrote:The reason this came up in our game was that I saw it, said it's a neat conversion, and then said "yea and you can just measure ranges from the turret, easy solution!" and got a "what are you talking about. I'm measuring from the plasmaguns, not the turret, they're separate systems". I let it go because it wasn't game changing in this instance (only one razorback of this variety) but was just pretty surprised as I'd never heard of/thought of this as an option before.

I'd let it go too, simply because the TLPG on that particular build has a much reduced firing sector compared to the turret. 1-2 inches of extra range in exchange for your sector going from 360 to 45 degrees is pretty mild.

Spetulhu wrote:I'd let it go too, simply because the TLPG on that particular build has a much reduced firing sector compared to the turret. 1-2 inches of extra range in exchange for your sector going from 360 to 45 degrees is pretty mild.

Not sure what you mean by that, my Hatch mounted one can rotate 360.

infinite_array wrote:Oooh. Hm. I'm going to say it's illegal.

The thing is, the las/plas is supposed to replace the Razorback's turret. Not to mention the fact that the plasmagun does get additional range.

Pretty sure you measure from hull.

I don't see any in-game difference.

For weapons on a vehicle you measure from the barrel of the weapon.

DeathReaper wrote:For weapons on a vehicle you measure from the barrel of the weapon.

Good point. I must be thinking of some other rule.

ph34r wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:For weapons on a vehicle you measure from the barrel of the weapon.

Good point. I must be thinking of some other rule.

for models with a base you'd be correct, which is probably what you're thinking of.