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.

Roll a die, move on with the game....

sfshilo wrote:Roll a die, move on with the game....

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Please read the tenets of YMDC.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

This has been a public service announcement.

OP, there are not any rules on where the turret of a razorback goes.

They do not tell you where the Lascannon is supposed to be Vs. where the twin linked plasma gun is supposed to be.

Model it how you feel it looks the best and go with that.

Haw haw! Lookit all youz 'oomiez, argyew'n about where da Dakka iz. Orkz is da Best, ''cuz we'z don't spend time worryin' bout dat, an' jus' go out 'n Krump all youz softiez.

Please don't spam the forum. Thanks! ~Manchu

Sister of Battle Immolators are Razorbacks with the turret mount forward. I see no issue with what you did, since my gals not only do the same thing, but their model is even taller. I actually prefer the Razorback turret over the Immolator turret, and use those instead.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:Sister of Battle Immolators are Razorbacks with the turret mount forward.

The Immolator is a completely separate vehicle. It is no more a razorback than a predator is.

insaniak wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:Sister of Battle Immolators are Razorbacks with the turret mount forward.

The Immolator is a completely separate vehicle. It is no more a razorback than a predator is.

Except that currently, the rules for both are identical, while the physical models are slightly different. Both are Rhino chassis based transports with a top mount turreted heavy weapon and a cargo capacity of 6. One has the turret physically mounted to the front, the other has the turret physically mounted to the back. Neither has an unit entry that specifies where the turrect is mounted.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:Except that currently, the rules for both are identical, while the physical models are slightly different.

...because they're not meant to be the same...

They're two different rhino variants that fulfil similar roles.

I haven't seen the new sisters dex but it's safe to assume it doesn't list a turret, just like the razorback.

Timely thread.

I was preparing to construct my Razorbacks with the mounting-ring of the turret toward the front - reason being that (with the proper turret) I could use the Razors as Predators w/out Sponsons. Didn't even consider it might be an issue.

Thanks to this discussion... I will proceed with my plan. If anyone I play has an issue, I'll just subtract an inch range.

Thanks, YMDC.

Honestly thought this was talking about the WAAC players who model their turrets as pintle mounts off the forward hatches for bolters. I've seen it with nearly all the BA players for thier Heavy Flamers, where the front of the turret is actually forward of the tank!

axeman1n wrote:Honestly thought this was talking about the WAAC players who model their turrets as pintle mounts off the forward hatches for bolters. I've seen it with nearly all the BA players for thier Heavy Flamers, where the front of the turret is actually forward of the tank!

...while I don't agree with it (edit ... that's modelling at the front of the tank) games workshop hasn't provided this model of razorback and any conversion is good since there is no declaration of where they go. While you could use a forgeworld kit this isn't always practical ...

... as this little turret cost £12.50 ... and that's over half price of the tank.

However other forgeworld products could be seen as modelling for advantage ...

... this conversion clearly moves the sponsons forward and moves the doors outward.

Again, modeling for advantage is all about intent.

If you use the FW kits (or any other conversion) because you think it looks cool, you're totally fine.
If you use the FW kits (or any other conversion) because it gives you an in-game advantage, you're cheating.

And, if someone so focused on winning that they'll model for advantage and then lie about it. Well... I feel sorry for them, because they really need to get some better priorities in life.

I guess the only trade off on the fw landraider is the heavy bolters are hull mounted and have a reduced fire arc.

Grakmar wrote:Again, modeling for advantage is all about intent.

(A)If you use the FW kits (or any other conversion) because you think it looks cool, you're totally fine.
(B)If you use the FW kits (or any other conversion) because it gives you an in-game advantage, you're cheating.

And, if someone so focused on winning that they'll model for advantage and then lie about it. Well... I feel sorry for them, because they really need to get some better priorities in life.

Just pointing out that even if you are planing to do (A) you might also be do (B) and that it only really matters If the other person makes a point of it (because they think you are getting an advantage or just don't like you)... and while we all feel that it is a move its hard to complain when there are no hard fast rules, on what a vehicle should look like.

How about modeling for common sense?

This is an M901 Improved TOW vehicle. It fired two wire guided missiles (I drove this when I was in the Army).

The gunner sat in the middle of the vehicle while the troops (up to 7) would sit in the rear.
When moving, the system would lay down facing the rear, covering the top hatch (Death Trap).


I know it's 40K, but placing the weapon system to the rear would block the rear ramp. Just my 14 years of Military Tactical Expertise.

~SPQR~

... No it wouldn't. You're assuming that the gunner for a razorback sits/stands directly underneath the weapon. There's no reason to assume that.

Not that the vehicles are scale anyway, nor do RL comparisons matter to 40k.

I know, but what it comes down to is this;

"For the believer, no explanation is necessary, for the non-believer, no explanation is possible."

Happy gaming!

Comparing the rhino line to the M113 line of vehicles is a fairly safe comparison. Using the real vehicles(M901 in this case) to talk about the astoundingly similar fictional vehicle's functionality isn't a bad analogy.

Yes, it is a fictional game about the far future but any two vehicles that are so similarly designed aesthetically are going to be mechanically similar, too. There will be some differences but it will be a safe bet that if we keep using the same basic chassis style for 40K years, we will probably be keeping some other similarities as well.

Rules wise, however, the above is as worthwhile as a three legged horse.

-cgmckenzie

Ray Age wrote:How about modeling for common sense?

This is an M901 Improved TOW vehicle. It fired two wire guided missiles (I drove this when I was in the Army).

The gunner sat in the middle of the vehicle while the troops (up to 7) would sit in the rear.
When moving, the system would lay down facing the rear, covering the top hatch (Death Trap).


I know it's 40K, but placing the weapon system to the rear would block the rear ramp. Just my 14 years of Military Tactical Expertise.

~SPQR~

The TOW carrier is a good example, I've modelled my RBs this way because of Bradleys. That gun turret extends into the hull space of the vehicle and troops need to be behind it to deploy. Of course the rhino chassis does have side doors which the 113/Bradleys don't

Brotherjulian wrote:The TOW carrier is a good example, I've modelled my RBs this way because of Bradleys. That gun turret extends into the hull space of the vehicle and troops need to be behind it to deploy. Of course the rhino chassis does have side doors which the 113/Bradleys don't

The rhino chassis on the actual model also has a detailed passenger compartment, which the razorback turret doesn't extend into...

There is one thing I would like to point out that I see a lot of in rules debates and I have asked this many times and no one has given me an answer. What is Modelling for Advantage and where in the rulebooks can it be found?

No there is nothing wrong with modelling a vehicle in a different way then the instructions suggest, and it doesn't matter if you do it for looks or for gaining an advantage because the rules do not tell you exactly where everything has to go on a model, in fact the way a model is modeled is completely up to the person putting it together.

Saiisil wrote:... in fact the way a model is modeled is completely up to the person putting it together.

And the decision as to whether or not to play that person is entirely up to their opponent.

Again, this isn't solely a rules issue. Or rather, it's an issue that arises because the rules don't cover the fact that the way a model functions in the game is changed if you change the model. So it's left up to the players to decide for themselves just what is and isn't acceptable.

You can insist as loudly as you want that the rules don't tell us how to assemble the models and so you can modify them however you like... but that's stil not going to fly with an opponent who thinks that the 12" long barrel on your Leman Russ turret crosses the line of acceptability.

So regardless of what the rules do or don't say about it, not altering your models to gain an in-game advantage is a gaming convention adopted by those players who actually want to be able to play the game against other people.