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.

Was at a tournament this weekend and someone called me out on how I have my turrets placed on my razorbacks. I had the hole for the turret to sit in placed forward toward the front of the vehicle. He was saying that since the directions for piecing it together tell me to place it towards the back, that I was modeling for advantage. He also noted that the only vehicle with the exception to this rule was Predator variants.

Note that he wasn't playing me or trying to get an advantage in the game in any way, but just simply noticing. I looked through all my marine codices and they are all modeled how he says.

IMO, I was clearly modeling it that way because I did want that extra inch. However, nowhere in the rules does it state I cannot place it that way.

Anyone encountered this before? Rulings?

For what it's worth I played that way with my Vanilla Marine Razors, however they were heavily converted and actually looked off balance if placed in the back.

I put mine the same way you put yours.

My opponents do not have an issue with it.

Not that it matters, the lascannon has a 48 inch range.

My Twin linked plasma gun is on a turret similar to the stormbolter is on a rhino.

If it should be assembled at the back, and you placed it forwards PURELY for advantage - then you have modelled for advantage.

While there are no rules disallowing it, there are no rules allowing it either.

If it were an issue in a tournament, my ruling as a TO would be that you would measure as if it were built correctly

So if I said I put it forward because I think it looks better that way, I wouldn't be cheating?

IMO it'd still be modeling for an advantage, just unintentionally. Measure from where it's supposed to be and it doesn't matter.

J Mac wrote:So if I said I put it forward because I think it looks better that way, I wouldn't be cheating?

If you honestly put it forward because you thought it looked better, then that would be modelling because you think it looks better.
If you put it forwad because you think it gives you an advantage, then you're modelling for advantage, regardless of the reason you tell people you did it. Lying about it just adds lying to the list of sins.

At the end of the day, whether you're modelling for advantage or just because you look cool, you're at the mercy of your opponent, since the rules technically don't allow you to modfiy the models. Any modification you make is going to be allowed or not depending on the opinion of your opponent, or the TO in the case of organised play.

Wouldn't putting the turret in back really hurt a razorback with twin linked heavy flamers? I mean most of the template would be over the model itself if you fire to the front. Personally I put the turret to the front because that's the way most American tanks are built so that's what looks "normal" to me.

Hmm. I think the premise of the question is kind of different to the answers given. Just my opinion though.

No. It is not 'Modelling to your advantage' to have the RB turret closer to the front. you are using ZERO modification - the panel fits in the spot either way forward OR rearwards. Nowhere in a Codex does it say either way.

If you ever play against someone who says ' you are modelling to gain ADVANTAGE' when it comes to RB turrets (in particucular )- I would say 'Your'e right man - as such, I resign in defeat - apologies for ruining your day' - and then go and play a more reasonable player.

akira5665 wrote:Hmm. I think the premise of the question is kind of different to the answers given. Just my opinion though.

No. It is not 'Modelling to your advantage' to have the RB turret closer to the front. you are using ZERO modification - the panel fits in the spot either way forward OR rearwards. Nowhere in a Codex does it say either way.

If you ever play against someone who says ' you are modelling to gain ADVANTAGE' when it comes to RB turrets (in particucular )- I would say 'Your'e right man - as such, I resign in defeat - apologies for ruining your day' - and then go and play a more reasonable player.

Please note you're not assembling it the way the instructions tell you to, so therefore it has been altered/modified from its orginal form.

I bought mine off e-bay, thats just how they came.

I haven't looked at the 'assembly instructions' for GW models in about 15 years.

Not sure how this correlates to the rulebook/s either......

Also - I couldn't be bothered to fill the interior of my Baneblade as I was never going to open the thing.

Does this now make it illegal in your eyes as 'I didn't follow the instructions' ?

I see what you are saying though.

THIS is a rule breaker - as it is in no way housed anywhere NEAR where it is supposed to..

DeathReaper wrote:I bought mine off e-bay, thats just how they came.

So if I buy a Chaplain off of Ebay with a MC base it's alright?

akira5665 wrote:I haven't looked at the 'assembly instructions' for GW models in about 15 years.

Not sure how this correlates to the rulebook/s either......

Also - I couldn't be bothered to fill the interior of my Baneblade as I was never going to open the thing.

Does this now make it illegal in your eyes as 'I didn't follow the instructions' ?

In my eyes absolutely not, however what if someone flopped putting together a Monlith and just made it so it's all flat? Its the same scenario taken to the extreme. in both cases I'd say they're modeling for advantage

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I bought mine off e-bay, thats just how they came.

So if I buy a Chaplain off of Ebay with a MC base it's alright?

That is the base it came with right?

In all seriousness, I was pointing out the fact that I did not assemble 3 out of the five razorbacks that I have.

Hmm. Good point. Except i think I was fairly clear RE RB's in particular, and Modelling for advantage. I used the Baneblade as a ref re instructions in a box - also I re-iterate - Box assembly instructions - NOT Rules in a book.

By that logic, all of my Marines would have to be posed as per the assembly instructions - otherwise .........

Me - If you ever play against someone who says ' you are modelling to gain ADVANTAGE' when it comes to RB turrets (in particucular )- I would say 'Your'e right man - as such, I resign in defeat - apologies for ruining your day' - and then go and play a more reasonable player.

I would say that you should be able to place a turret, gun and such anywhere on a tank that is physically possible; this represents what would happen in real life. No one is going to say, "that gun is too far to the front - I'm not going to war with you" in real life. If your opponent does get angry, you have two options, the first is just agreeing with him, being the mature player and sacrifice a couple of extra inches as to avoid an argument or the second option:

akira5665 wrote: If you ever play against someone who says ' you are modelling to gain ADVANTAGE' when it comes to RB turrets (in particular )- I would say 'You're right man - as such, I resign in defeat - apologies for ruining your day' - and then go and play a more reasonable player.

Ha ha this thread is great, there is no stipulation on where to model it from as long as you play consistent... If your opponent has a problem then he isn't worth playing, seriously, an inch?! Technically they don't make a lasplas turret, so explain to me how you could "claim" it is supposed to be located somewhere, also, compare an IG Las cannon to a Devastator Las canon, and then to a predator and a Land Raider....They re all different sizes and lengths....

But my favorite argument of all, open up the codex space marines and look at how they model the Land Riders, notice the sponsons move forward and switch doors on the redeemer because it uses templates.... Advantage anyone?!.... Even the Heavy Metal team at GW models for advantage according to you guys standards...

Hellwolf wrote:I would say that you should be able to place a turret, gun and such anywhere on a tank that is physically possible; this represents what would happen in real life.

Yes, in real life quasi-religious orders who have devoted themselves to a supposed machine god and to the purity of designs handed down through millenia put their laser cannons wherever they feel like putting them...

akira5665 wrote:Not sure how this correlates to the rulebook/s either......

Modelling for advantage has never been a rules issues as much as a 'can't we all just get along?' issue. GW has always been vague on just what is and isn't acceptable model-wise which, when combined with a ruleset that results in models functioning differently on the table depending on how they are constructed, leaves it up to players to determine just what is and isn't acceptable.

And really, everyone is never going to agree there. Until GW give us a ruleset that either considers different model profiles or renders them irrelevant, we'll just have to keep either playing with like-minded players or discussing our conversions with opponents if we want to avoid hassles in the middle of a game where the turret being an inch further forwards suddenly matters...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Corsair wrote:But my favorite argument of all, open up the codex space marines and look at how they model the Land Riders, notice the sponsons move forward and switch doors on the redeemer because it uses templates....

Land Raiders have (for as long as the current model has been around at least) had the option of mounting the sponsons on the front or rear door. In that one case, it's not modelling for advantage. It's a design feature.

I do put my turrets on the back, but only because I like the look better. I don't see a problem with sticking them in either position.

Insaniak - Modelling for advantage has never been a rules issues as much as a 'can't we all just get along?' issue. GW has always been vague on just what is and isn't acceptable model-wise which, when combined with a ruleset that results in models functioning differently on the table depending on how they are constructed, leaves it up to players to determine just what is and isn't acceptable.

Good answer there - thanks Ins.

insaniak wrote:
Land Raiders have (for as long as the current model has been around at least) had the option of mounting the sponsons on the front or rear door. In that one case, it's not modelling for advantage. It's a design feature.

How is this different? Either you put it in the front, benefitting from an extra inch or so vs. putting it in the back and not benefitting.

Because in the case of the land raider, it's an intentional design feature. In the case of the razorback, it's assembling it incorrectly.

The Land Raider was intended to be configurable. The Razorback wasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The configuration of the Land Raider also has a trade-off... putting the weapons on the front hatches makes it harder to use the side access ports for disembarking troops.

I always put my Land Raider Sponsons on the front points anyway, because having the access hatches in front of the guns always seemed daft to me.

According to the rules
p.3 when measuring distances between 2 model, use the closest points of their bases as your reference point. For models without bases, use the hull instead.

This means having your turrent placed forward of the norm will not give you added range since the range is from the hull. You only use the turrent the determine LOS. So your turrent placement does not give you an advanatage only a slightly different LOS.

Garrick wrote:According to the rules
p.3 when measuring distances between 2 model, use the closest points of their bases as your reference point. For models without bases, use the hull instead.

This means having your turrent placed forward of the norm will not give you added range since the range is from the hull. You only use the turrent the determine LOS. So your turrent placement does not give you an advanatage only a slightly different LOS.

The vehicle rules are more specific than this: range is measured from the muzzle of the weapon. Page 56, "Vehicles and Measuring Distances".

Garrick wrote:According to the rules
p.3 when measuring distances between 2 model, use the closest points of their bases as your reference point. For models without bases, use the hull instead.

Which applies to all measurement except for determining weapon ranges for vehicle weapons.

Incidentally, 'turret' doesn't have an 'n' in it...

I think you might want look at your rulebook again. It say for all distances. The rules in the vehicle section only deal with LOS

Garrick, have a look at Page 56, under the heading 'Vehicles & Measuring distances' section 2nd Paragraph.

It tells us that "when firing a vehicles weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon."

Thanks for pointing that out. I overlooked it by going to vehicle shooting section.
Sorry about any confusion I caused

insaniak wrote:Because in the case of the land raider, it's an intentional design feature. In the case of the razorback, it's assembling it incorrectly.

The Land Raider was intended to be configurable. The Razorback wasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The configuration of the Land Raider also has a trade-off... putting the weapons on the front hatches makes it harder to use the side access ports for disembarking troops.

Who is to say how it is intended? And before you say the assembly instructions, think about the contradiction you'll make with this landraider argument.

Also, if you put a stormbolter onto your razorback it is almost impossible to fit both on there unless the turret sits towards the rear.