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.

On the razorback model, i modeled it with the turrent forward so i can get the extra inch. would that be considered cheating/modeling for an advantage in a tournament setting?

Yes, considering you even said you did it for an advantage how is there any doubt?

It is up to the TO but since the model has a clear and obvious set up I think you are modelling for advantage.
The fact you said "so I can get the extra inch" shows that you are not modelling for cool just looking for an advantage.
My opinion is no to letting that fly.

Damn it ghaz. Ninja'd

Well it depends in my mind ......... If it has Twin linked Las cannons on it and has it's turret mounted on it like a VK 4502A then that is dangerous but if it's only slighlty foward then i think it's plausable , i know guys who model their snipers into Ruins on thier stands and that seems to work out well .( keep in mind your also a bigger target )

faheykeyes wrote:On the razorback model, i modeled it with the turrent forward so i can get the extra inch.

So you can get an extra inch eh?

faheykeyes wrote: would that be considered cheating/modeling for an advantage in a tournament setting?

What do you think?


Still, if it looks cool, I'd allow it.

On a related note, the manticore has a fixed forward turret (I think, unless I made it wrong). Is it modelling for advantage to let it rotate around? I want to make one that looks like a MLRS, and they can rotate, so yeah...opinions?

I put this in the same camp with how you build your land raider.

Crablezworth wrote:I put this in the same camp with how you build your land raider.

TBH I see this one as different. I honestly think the guns should be in the front and doors in the back due to the fact you don't design a tank to shoot the people as they get out.
Plus if you do it the other way round, you don't gain anything shooting wise and you don't really gain anything when it comes to unloading a squad.

*Shrug* I would probably allow it, though I am skeptical because you actually admitted you were getting an advantage. I have my skimmers glued onto the bottom of the base that they come with, rather than using the stick. Why? Because:

A. Eldar Skimmers in DoW 2 (how I was introduced to the game) road real close the ground, and it was part of the reason I liked them.

B. Because GW flying bases are total crap and my Fire Prisms always looked like a low rider with the front all jacked up, than my Wave Serpent looked like a dragster.

Now, they look sleek and skimming across the ground. I suppose I get a mild advantage for cover, but I also can't see over a lot of gak to shoot effectively across a board. Nobody I have played with had a problem playing with them as such.

So, you are modelling your razorback in such a way that you gain a range advantage of about an inch? In this sentence, I answered your question...

Can I get a judgement on the related question about the manticore?

motyak wrote:Can I get a judgement on the related question about the manticore?

Is it listed as a turret-mounted weapon? If so, no, it's not. Otherwise, it follows the 45° firing arc rule.


Managed to check in the codex and found none of the IG tanks are listed as having turrets... but the manticore model itself looks as if the rockets are meant to face forward, unlike the whirlwind. I'd say it would be modelling for advantage, but do you gain? The strongest armor is to the front anyway...

Its listed in wargear the same way as a Leman Russ main weapon, a Chimera multilaser, etc, so I'd say maybe, but its also the same as a basilisk, so maybe not? Come to think of it, nothing is listed as turret mounted in the IG dex

Ninja'd by editing...

Yeah true. There isn't much to gain...I guess it could be easier to hide? But then it'd be wider...I dunno, I'll do it anyway, and then just measure 45 degree arc if my opponent has any problem.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most heinous case of modelling to advantage you can get. This is a 1. Considering the vehicle can spin at will in the movement phase, that extra inch is trivial.

I mean, mounting the sponsons on a LR on the front instead of back is a bigger deal, and no one bitches about that. Using an older edition rhino or ork trukk is legal, and they have significantly bigger impact for LOS purposes. Hell, my 2nd edition Hive Tyrant is capable of being screened 50% by genestealers. That's a MASSIVE advantage, but is also legal.

You can't ban his vehicle based on intent. If one guy models for advantage and one does it to look cool, does it really matter what they intended? As the end result is the same. Is the model WYSIWYG, and assembled in a sane manner? If yes, it's legal. Otherwise consult with your tournament organizer. Around half of the razorback images I was able to dig up from bigger tournaments have the turrets mounted forward. Kirby's GK army for example has them mounted forward.
legal.

Legal: Yes

Dodgy: Yes

Same goes with using the titchy 2nd ed models for advantage. I have several old trukks, for example, but when the new trukk came in i started using them as buggies instead. It would have been legal for me to use them as trukks, but to me it seemed a bit cheaty (especially after a few months after the new models came in, giving ample time to buy the new official-sized kits).

Fielding a Hive Tyrant the size of a Warrior is a bit dodgy too, though again legal. It would make a great Prime, but it's way too small to be a Tyrant

I'd still play someone using th old models for advantage, but it'd not thrill my cockles.

Someone fielding an entire old-model army, on the other hand, I would love, as it would be a huge nostalgia trip

Double standard, i know, but too often the old models are being used deliberately for 'legal' rules-abuse .

I model mine both ways. Just dont glue the turret down, that way you can have it either way and could also use it as a rhino.

I have my Razorbacks, and My Predators modeled this way.

No one has ever had an issue with it.

This is because there are multiple ways to model it, and the first razorback I picked up had the turret in the forward position, so I modeled all of my razorbacks that way.

MFA, no, since the front and side armor are the same on a razorback, there is no MFA, since you can rotate in the movement phase.'

and it is Literally less than an inch of range gained by modeling them in the forward position (about 3/4 ths of an inch is gained by putting them forward.)

motyak wrote:Its listed in wargear the same way as a Leman Russ main weapon, a Chimera multilaser, etc, so I'd say maybe, but its also the same as a basilisk, so maybe not? Come to think of it, nothing is listed as turret mounted in the IG dex

The ig dex isn't the only one where they haven't listed how anything is mounted. Look at the marine dex, hell, pretty much every dex since tau empire. The BBB lies when it tells you to refer to the vehicle's entry because as you've seen there isn't any description in the entry of how weapons are mounted.

On the topic of the manticore, I converted my own about a month after the codex came out. I converted it based on how it looked in the codex(there's a pic of the forgeworld one). It has a turret. I had people give me crap and I asked them if they'd still give me crap if I had spent the money on the forgeworld one and they'd say no... so somehow it's modelling for advantage but there's no such thing as buying for advantage. Long story short, one of the biggest holes in the rules are weapon mountings. Rife for abuse, but thankfully TO's who've read the INAT are aware of the issue.

Crablezworth wrote:thankfully TO's who've read the INAT are aware of the issue.

I know the INAT isn't a be all and end all on here like the rulebook is, but what would a TO up on INAT say re: this?

I would allow it. Because it looks cooler imo. It looks more like a modern tank. in a tourney setting why not Jawaballs has his so the hole is at the front giving him the inch no one has complained about afaik.

I would put mine to the front however people at My FLGS have theres at the back and I dont want to seem like I'm doing it for an advantage. Which eventhough I would do it for medeling, it would seem that i was doing it for the inch.

If you had yours at the front I would ask if I could put mine to the front to make it fair. if you said yes then its an even playing feild. If you said no then I would pack up and wouldn't play you. As it would be giving you an advantage that you are not allowing me.

EDIT: There was a thread on this a while back but I am unable to find it.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, you are modelling your razorback in such a way that you gain a range advantage of about an inch? In this sentence, I answered your question...

As against modeling for disadvantage, Why would you want to put the gun farther back. The forward position is the right position.
As in flamer turrets, lightly roasted hull anyone ?
This is a none event, no cheating here

You have to have some perspective. Getting an extra inch out of a heavy bolter or lascannon is not the same as an entire blob squad that're all crouching.

faheykeyes wrote:On the razorback model, i modeled it with the turrent forward so i can get the extra inch. would that be considered cheating/modeling for an advantage in a tournament setting?

Given that you just said that you did it for the extra inch, then it is definitely modelling for an advantage. It may be considered unsportsmanly, and some TOs may even disallow it; personally, I'd probably shrug and just play it anyway.

In the end, it will always come down to your opponent or TO.

Who in the world would put the vent/hatch in front of a gun turret?

It looks better and it also makes sense to put the turret up front. Same thing with sponsons on a land raider...

My personal position is that it's all about intent. You said plainly that you're doing it for the extra inch. If you're seeking the bonus from doing so, you're modeling for advantage, end of story. If you say you're doing it for looks, I will take your word for it. I have a couple of little tweaks myself that I know could be considered MFA. For example, I use vanquisher turrets on my LRBTs because I think the battle cannon is too stumpy. BUT, if my opponent objected, I'd gladly subtract an inch from its range to satisfy the rules.

Basically, if you say it's for cool factor, I will not challenge you unless its super egregious. If it is, I'll ask that we consider the model to have the standard profile for gameplay purposes. I'm not here to police your conscience, so if you tweak it for minor advantage and lie about it, congratulations. A winner is you.

Carnage43 wrote:
I mean, mounting the sponsons on a LR on the front instead of back is a bigger deal, and no one bitches about that.

GW have a picture of a LR redeemer with the sponsons on the from so I have always thought it ok. When i eventually get one thats the way I am gonna model it. besides if the sponsons are on the front then the LR has a smaller firing distance behind it so its kinda a trade off.

Just re-read that and it sounds a bit bitchy, appologies not the way I intended.

Carnage43 wrote:I mean, mounting the sponsons on a LR on the front instead of back is a bigger deal, and no one bitches about that.

That's because the Land Raider is actually intended to have the sponsons in either configuration.

Using an older edition rhino or ork trukk is legal, and they have significantly bigger impact for LOS purposes.

The size difference on the rhino isn't enough to have an appreciable difference in game. The trukk, on the other hand... a lot of people actually do object to Ork players still using them as trukks, due to them being so much smaller than the current version. (I never did use mine as a trukk, due to it being so ridiculously under-sized. I use mine as a buggy instead)

Using older models that are a different size has always been somewhat of a contentious issue. But it's a completely different issue to modifying an existing model to give yourself a perceived advantage.

insaniak wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:I mean, mounting the sponsons on a LR on the front instead of back is a bigger deal, and no one bitches about that.

That's because the Land Raider is actually intended to have the sponsons in either configuration.

As is the mounting plate for pred turret.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440276a&prodId=prod1660001