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, my next model will probably be a trukk. Ignore the two-color priming, as I want to do the bed in yellow and the frame in dark metal.

Anyway, as I was building it, I was thinking that I would like the way it looked better with the turret repositioned, as pictured. Right after gluing it in, I realized it's actually kind of high, about an inch higher now. It also will now have 360 degree LOS where it did not before.

Before I go any further on this, I thought I better get a ruling here as to whether this would be considered modelling for advantage. I just thought it looked cooler, but I don't want to be cheating either.

In my personal opinion, I would allow it, but I would also expect to see it coming under question in a more competitive environment. Best thing to do is simply ask your opponent if they're fine with it and if they're not, then just count it with the same fire arc as the original mounting.

Ouze wrote: I just thought it looked cooler,

99% of the time, that's all you need. Particularly with Orks.


I wouldn't have a problem with it.

looks great

like KInsaniak said, coolness will be fine 99% of the time.




you will run into that guy in a competitive enviroment, but he would complain about something else if you hadn't done it.




one way to not get flak for this, or at least have a good escape route, is to have multiple converted trukks. each weapon should be in a different position.

modeling for advantage would be all your trukks having the gunner in the same place. one trukk with the guy up there will be more forgivable then.

Honestly, I would have no problem with it. and, like Valkyrie said, if somebody does have a problem with it, you can just treat it as being where it originally was. you could even add a grot or something in the place of the original to be a reference for the people who think its wrong.

well considering that the codex makes no mention of the arc of the weapon on either the Battlewagon, Looted tank or Trukk i don't think that anyone can have any right to complain tbh, if it was stated that it was 180 to the front even i doubt it would make a massive difference either as it can still use that arc being where it is.

it could even be a hindrance considering LOS tbh as it could expose you more

edit - looking at my Marine codex no vehicle mentions arcs actually

Penfold wrote: it could even be a hindrance considering LOS tbh as it could expose you more

+1. You get better LOS, but I get better LOS to you and the bigger truck is harder to hide for a natural cover save (KFF and other orc shenanigans aside).

yeah,


either GW needs to define where the gun mounts are on every vehicle,

or give modelers free reign, but stipulate that TLOS will still apply.

Dude, follow the 'rule of cool'. If it is cool, than the person raising a stink about it is TFG. I love going against converted models like that, as it changes the game up and actually takes skill to make look good.

With the orks, the fact that you moved it around fits completely with the fluff. They don't have a standard they are building to, just slapping stuff together and wishing for the best.

-cgmckenzie

I would be fine with it.

As others have said invoke the rule of cool... and this IS cool!

Thanks, guys, I will continue painting it.

benefits of LOS for an army that can't hit anything?, nah I don't see that as a problem

That is the most random and insane position for a fire turret. Well done And yh, any self-respecting player should be fine with that. After all, they're playing orkz. This is gonna be the least of their worries

Ask your opponent to find you the rule that disallows modelling for advantage.

He may be a while so bring a pillow and a book.

Since the trukk is the same armour all around the 360 FOF really isn't that big of a deal. It's not like you are keeping stronger armour to the enemy while still being able to shoot.

Homer

and its BS2.

it might hit once a game so who really cares about the slight gain in LoS

Grey Templar wrote:and its BS2.

it might hit once a game so who really cares about the slight gain in LoS

... and you lose about 2" of range(with a 24" range gun that is more meaningful than if you kept the Stock Big Shoota, which has a 36" range).

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Ask your opponent to find you the rule that disallows modelling for advantage.

'The rules don't say I can't' is not, and has never been, a satisfactory answer to a rules question. For something to be legal, you need a rule that allows it, not the absence of a rule forbidding it.

It duz if it'z Orks!

I've done the same thing with my Truuks, and I've never had anyone comment other than "that looks cool"
The nice thing about the Ork Truuk kit is that the turret can sit on the roll bars without needing to be glued.
If my opponent did object I can move the gunner back to the original position.

insaniak wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Ask your opponent to find you the rule that disallows modelling for advantage.

'The rules don't say I can't' is not, and has never been, a satisfactory answer to a rules question. For something to be legal, you need a rule that allows it, not the absence of a rule forbidding it.

Thanks for that - although you may have missed the point. The concept that one might be modelling for advantage does not lack clarity - it simply doesn't exist in terms. Whilst it's considered sporting to refrain from the classic 'kneeling Wraithlord' vein of modelling tricks the argument itself has no foundation in the game rules. Any such restriction can only exist as an agreement between players or as a specific ruling provided by an event official.

Penfold wrote:well considering that the codex makes no mention of the arc of the weapon on either the Battlewagon, Looted tank or Trukk

You realise that none of the codexes do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Ask your opponent to find you the rule that disallows modelling for advantage.

I'll find you that rule right after you show me the rule that lets you assemble your model in an incorrect way (i.e. not following the assembly instructions).

On the shadowsword datasheet, it says you can add additional sponsons but fails to show you where to put anymore than 2. Can I not add them because it would be assembly different than the instructions?

-cgmckenzie

ps-yeah, I know it is Apoc, I am just building one right now and kinda have it on the brain.

there are those three sets of armor plates that go on each side.

normally the sponson it comes with goes in one of those. you simply put the 2nd pair in another one of those spaces.

If anyone has a problem with it, just assume to be firing from were the gun normally would be and measure from that point.

Grey Templar wrote:there are those three sets of armor plates that go on each side.

normally the sponson it comes with goes in one of those. you simply put the 2nd pair in another one of those spaces.

Yeah, I figured it was that but they still don't specifically say how to do it, so it would be assembled not per instructions. That was the point I was trying to make.

-cgmckenzie

the kit doesn't come with the extra set of sponsons.

you have to order them seperatly.



people typicaly mount them with one in the front and one in the back with the center plate being left there.