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 want to build a razorback with heavy flamers, but I don't want the turret to be at the back end of the tank. It's stupid, every other flame tank in the game has a more forward facing or central turret, and those have 12" range too!
I feel like if you put flamers on that back turret I'd have to get the damn thing sideways just to get the bulk of the teardrop over a unit. That's dumb.

What do you guys think, if I kit bashed an immolator or something to make a razorback with a forward facing flame turret, is that cheesy or justified?

I would have no problem with that. Of course, there are some who call any conversion of any kind done for any reason "cheating".
Your best bet would be to discuss it with your local gaming club and TO if you do the tournament thing.
Personally, I agree, it would only make sense and be fluffy so would have no issues.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I would have no problem with that. Of course, there are some who call any conversion of any kind done for any reason "cheating".
Your best bet would be to discuss it with your local gaming club and TO if you do the tournament thing.
Personally, I agree, it would only make sense and be fluffy so would have no issues.

It is Cheating. I have seen such modifications disqualified at tourneys and they made the player measure from where the stock turret would be.

Fluff doesn't justify modeling for Advantage. If you don't like how the model works, don't use the model. Don't say 'rules do not apply to me! I can do what I want'. Why not basically tell your opponent you deserve an 18" range because "you feel like it."?

So your saying that if I have a blood angel model and don't like the way the helmet works, I am by your definition cheating if I prefer to use a grey knight helmets because I like the "knight" helmet look better. Your stance is duly noted.,

The FACT remains, the people whose opinion the OP should the most about are the player he actually plays with and the TO for the tourneys he attends. I don't think any of us (yourself and myself included, have the authority (or the ability to even if we did have said authority) to go to every game played around the world and personally police them to match our private interpretations. This is why you talk with your local players and To and get THIER interpretations.

Ask your opponents. There is no real universal application of rules to account for what you are proposing, so it's up to the people you game with if they want to allow it.

It is 'modeling for advantage'; though I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. (as I'd agree, mounting a flame thrower on the 'back' of a tank is tactically silly)

 EVIL INC wrote:
So your saying that if I have a blood angel model and don't like the way the helmet works, I am by your definition cheating if I prefer to use a grey knight helmets because I like the "knight" helmet look better. Your stance is duly noted.,

The FACT remains, the people whose opinion the OP should the most about are the player he actually plays with and the TO for the tourneys he attends. I don't think any of us (yourself and myself included, have the authority (or the ability to even if we did have said authority) to go to every game played around the world and personally police them to match our private interpretations. This is why you talk with your local players and To and get THIER interpretations.

Does the knight helmet fundamentally change the Range/LOS of the weapons the Blood Angel carries?

No, it doesn't.

Is Changing your razorback to have the turret at \the front of the tank the very definition of modelling for advantage?

Yes, Yes it is.

According to him and his stance ANY conversion of ANY kind done for ANY reason is cheating.
Even though you do not believe it, some conversions ARE done for coolness value or just to make a model fit the fluff. Of course, people like this know this, they just call "cheater" to keep opponants from using models or units they don't want to face (NO, you cant use that riptide, you modeled a wrecked drone on the base and you did not pay extra points for a wrecked drone, your cheating)

Why are you so against the OP discussing this with his gaming club where he actually plays? That is where he will get the answers that matter to him.

 EVIL INC wrote:
According to him and his stance ANY conversion of ANY kind done for ANY reason is cheating.

Why are you so against the OP discussing this with his gaming club where he actually plays? That is where he will get the answers that matter to him.

May I correct you that he did not imply that any conversion is cheating. How the hell would you call changing a helmet to be cheating whatsoever? An what does a wrecked Tau Drone on a base of a Riptide even have to do with cheating?

The template is measured from the tip of the weapon on the turret. Putting the turret more backwards would not be allowed on tournaments. Isn't minded as much in friendly games.

A Razorback with Heavy Flamers (or other weapon type) mounted on the front is an Immolator...a SoB unit.
And you can't put Space marines into an Immolator (Allied units may not use a transport not in their specific FOC).

So drive the FlamerBack up to the unit you want to torch and either pivot the model so the side or rear is closest to the unit.

he flat out said it in a different thread. He had just followed me to this one after I had commented on it.

The people whose opinions matter are those of your gaming club and local TO. This could be considered a partial disadvantage because by moving it forward, you would be shortening the range in other directions. For example, you rush it forward and spin it around to disembark the unit inside (which is what this loadout is designed for) you would be shortening your range as the gun would be at the wrong end. A way to do it would be to mark on the model where the tip of the gun would be if it were set in the rear and measure from that point is someone did not want to let you do it. That would most likely satisfy them. Likewise, you would need to measure the distance you could fire in the other direction and find a way to mark that spot as well. (maybe Just mark there the center spin for the gun would be and measure out from that distance). That way it would purely be a cosmetic conversion and only those such as has already posted here would call foul. Most gaming clubs oust those early on.

See, I can understand someone getting upset about a conversion that confers a crazy advantage (my tiny dreadnought with tank tread legs 100% hides behind the hill)
but this doesn't really confer much of one. Rotating doesn't count towards your movement distance. I could shoot forward 12" with a razorback, pivot 90 degrees, and unlease the flame. I just think it's sort of dumb. I'd at most be gaining about an inch, but the exact same is true with, say, a dreadnought modeled with his power fist meltagun extended, which is a totally normal pose, vs, say the forge world model where the melta is bolted to his torso. The rules don't really discuss where weapons have to be placed on models.

Just remember: if you put a flamer on your vehicle, the most it can move is 6" if you want to shoot the template. Razorbacks are not very survivable (at AV11), and with Flamers you also ruin the mobility. You might want to consider a different weapon, and avoid the converting question altogether.
(Unless you're playing BA, in which case you get a 12" move, a bit more doable.)

EVIL INC wrote:he flat out said it in a different thread. He had just followed me to this one after I had commented on it.

You will find if you spend any time in YMDC that there are several regulars who generally chime in on pretty much every rules discussion here. Seeing the same names in the threads you post in doesn't mean that they're 'following' you.

Walnuts wrote:See, I can understand someone getting upset about a conversion that confers a crazy advantage (my tiny dreadnought with tank tread legs 100% hides behind the hill)
but this doesn't really confer much of one. Rotating doesn't count towards your movement distance. I could shoot forward 12" with a razorback, pivot 90 degrees, and unlease the flame.

With the consequence of potentially exposing your weaker rear armour. Mounting the weapon forwards removes that risk.

However, I would echo this:

Elric Greywolf wrote:Just remember: if you put a flamer on your vehicle, the most it can move is 6" if you want to shoot the template. Razorbacks are not very survivable (at AV11), and with Flamers you also ruin the mobility. You might want to consider a different weapon, and avoid the converting question altogether.
(Unless you're playing BA, in which case you get a 12" move, a bit more doable.)

It;s simply generally not worth putting template or Blast weapons on vehicles in 6th edition.

In 100% of situations, mounting the weapon on the forward-most part of the vehicle will always grant an advantage... But there is an expectation that everyone's vehicles operate the same based upon the rules. Why should your flamers get an extra inch that no one else using the same unit gets?

If it is such a minor advantage, why do you want it at all? Why go through the effort to make your model not universally accepted anywhere or potentially impact social relations with people you play with by doing something which will be questionable?

The argument of I can put a weapon anywhere I want doesn't work... you will find lots of people who expect the models to be assembled per the model directions or else you have the issue with 'gravel genestealers'

If putting your weapons anywhere is valid because 'the rules don't say I can't' then so is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Just remember: if you put a flamer on your vehicle, the most it can move is 6" if you want to shoot the template. Razorbacks are not very survivable (at AV11), and with Flamers you also ruin the mobility. You might want to consider a different weapon, and avoid the converting question altogether.
(Unless you're playing BA, in which case you get a 12" move, a bit more doable.)

Yeah, I'm BA... unfortunately

 Walnuts wrote:
So I want to build a razorback with heavy flamers, but I don't want the turret to be at the back end of the tank. It's stupid, every other flame tank in the game has a more forward facing or central turret, and those have 12" range too!
I feel like if you put flamers on that back turret I'd have to get the damn thing sideways just to get the bulk of the teardrop over a unit. That's dumb.

What do you guys think, if I kit bashed an immolator or something to make a razorback with a forward facing flame turret, is that cheesy or justified?

You'd have to ask your gaming group. However, by your very reasoning in this above quote, it's clearly Modeling For Advantage, and most people won't allow it, including me.

Its fine by me, you are just making a kinda useless weapon set up well, slightly less useless haha. So yea i say go ahead. Just make sure it looks good.

nkelsch wrote:
In 100% of situations, mounting the weapon on the forward-most part of the vehicle will always grant an advantage... But there is an expectation that everyone's vehicles operate the same based upon the rules. Why should your flamers get an extra inch that no one else using the same unit gets?

If it is such a minor advantage, why do you want it at all? Why go through the effort to make your model not universally accepted anywhere or potentially impact social relations with people you play with by doing something which will be questionable?

The argument of I can put a weapon anywhere I want doesn't work... you will find lots of people who expect the models to be assembled per the model directions or else you have the issue with 'gravel genestealers'

If putting your weapons anywhere is valid because 'the rules don't say I can't' then so is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY

'cause it looks dumb on the back, and if I have to scratch build the turret anyway, why not make it look less dumb? Old predators have front turrets, new predators have back turrets. It's still the same model. I have a bunch of scratch built tank turrets and dreadnought weapon arms to cover weapon options that you either can't purchase, or couldn't purchase when I built them, and probably none of them are the exact dimensions of their GW equivalent, if they exist. I've never had an opponent bitch about my army, and one dude once told me "I love your army, I can tell what everything is, but nothing looks like what it's supposed to."

There's a slight difference between 'my conversion has slightly different dimensions than the stock gw fig' and 'I literally glued cover to my base' which no sane person would ever consider for a second.

Anyway, ya'll seem split down the middle on this one, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. Screw anyone pedantic enough to bitch to my face about it.

I would ask people to point out the rule in the rule book that even mentions modelling for advantage and to the rule that states the instructions are rules.

indeed a very similar discussion happened not too long ago regarding drop pods and that very thing.

also how many of you take issues with people mounting landraider sponsons on the front area rather than the back?

It should be judged on a case by case situation. Id call the OPs one modelling for practicality.

Walnuts, this isn't a matter of if it actually confers an advantage. It is more a matter of "if my opponent has an army list that I am weak against is there anything that I can make them do without so that I can gain an advantage".
As you can see in this thread, the majority of conversions are done for "coolness value" alone.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Walnuts, this isn't a matter of if it actually confers an advantage. It is more a matter of "if my opponent has an army list that I am weak against is there anything that I can make them do without so that I can gain an advantage"..

No, it isn't.

Most (likely, all) of the people in this thread are unlikely to ever wind up on the opposite side of the table to the specific conversion being discussed here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
also how many of you take issues with people mounting landraider sponsons on the front area rather than the back?

I wouldn't, since the kit was specifically designed to mount the sponsons on either hatch, as explained by GW when the kit was released.

While spinning the top plate round to mount the weapon farther forward might be MFA, if its the advantage your really after keep in mind there is no official turret for the heavy flamer on a razerback. You can leave the turret base where it belongs and use a turret that places the tips of the heavy flamers farther forward like you wanted. No advantage there as there is no baseline to compare it to.

Personally, if you are throwing a fit over whether a flamer turret is forward or back, then you should just pack up your toys and go home, since you cannot handle the stress of playing a game.

On-topic: yes, making that change would be cheating. Moving a turret so you get better range is textbook MFA.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So your saying that if I have a blood angel model and don't like the way the helmet works, I am by your definition cheating if I prefer to use a grey knight helmets because I like the "knight" helmet look better. Your stance is duly noted.

Seriously, are you just incapable of participating in a discussion without making ridiculous straw man arguments? Nobody is arguing that aesthetic conversions like helmet swaps are cheating. The argument is over whether you can change the size/shape of a model to gain an in-game advantage.

Peregrine, try to learn the rules of the forum. Rule #1 in particular.

There will always be some who will accuse you of mfa over even a helmet switch if they think that you not getting to use it in a game against them will give them an advantage. Of course, they will deny it here in the eye of the public though. Take perigrine for example. I gave the way around it in terms of measuring where the center of the turret would normally be where you can ssee where the tips of the barrels are "supposed" to be and he totally ignored it as then it is purely cosmetic and does not alter the stats or ranges at all in any way. So since it would then be a conversion done for pure coolness value and he still denies it's use...

 EVIL INC wrote:
There will always be some who will accuse you of mfa over even a helmet switch if they think that you not getting to use it in a game against them will give them an advantage.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Nobody, and I seriously do mean nobody, is going to call swapping a head on a model MFA unless the head that you use in some way modifies how the model functions in the game.

That model of yours instant supposed to have eyes! Swapping that head gave him eyes and now he can us TLoS! Thats MFA!

 EVIL INC wrote:
There will always be some who will accuse you of mfa over even a helmet switch if they think that you not getting to use it in a game against them will give them an advantage.

No, there really aren't. This scenario is about as likely as your absurd idea of some FW zealot coming to your house and threatening to murder your family if you don't let them use their titan in a 500 point game.

Take perigrine for example. I gave the way around it in terms of measuring where the center of the turret would normally be where you can ssee where the tips of the barrels are "supposed" to be and he totally ignored it as then it is purely cosmetic and does not alter the stats or ranges at all in any way. So since it would then be a conversion done for pure coolness value and he still denies it's use...

So now you're going to just make stuff up and pretend I said it? I have never disagreed with the idea of measuring/drawing LOS/etc based on how the standard model would work. In fact I've explicitly mentioned willingness to do that as a test of whether something is MFA or not as a response to you in the ork ADL thread, but I guess you just ignored that.

So we are still ignoring that there is an easy way for the OP to modify his razorback to look cool and still have it be "stock" to all intents and purposes in regards to the game rules and posters are unwilling to let him use those ways?

As I said, no one would admit to it on here.