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.

 grendel083 wrote:
If it's a standard Taurox you're going for, just use the turret option. Problem solved

Sadly, no. Primes for my Scions. Fast transports with missilez n'all that. My volley guns are gonna have to get some firing mounts built if they really are fixed forwards, because gosh that's a dumb design

Hmmm.

Default is fixed, on the sides, pictured by the OP in the first post on the first page(the Auto cannons).

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If it's a standard Taurox you're going for, just use the turret option. Problem solved

Sadly, no. Primes for my Scions. Fast transports with missilez n'all that. My volley guns are gonna have to get some firing mounts built if they really are fixed forwards, because gosh that's a dumb design

Hmmm.

Bear in mind some people/tournaments may object on the grounds of modelling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Default is fixed, on the sides, pictured by the OP in the first post on the first page(the Auto cannons).

For the Prime yes.
The standard Taurox has the option of having the autocannon turret or hull mounted.

True but why wouldn't you put it in the turret?

Well aside from dual purposing the kit i guess.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
If it's a standard Taurox you're going for, just use the turret option. Problem solved

Sadly, no. Primes for my Scions. Fast transports with missilez n'all that. My volley guns are gonna have to get some firing mounts built if they really are fixed forwards, because gosh that's a dumb design

Hmmm.

If your converting the model to gain an advantage that its not supposed to have, its called modeling for advantage. Good luck finding opponents who don't mind that your cheating.

 BarBoBot wrote:
If your converting the model to gain an advantage that its not supposed to have, its called modeling for advantage. Good luck finding opponents who don't mind that your cheating.

If I end up in a tournament, I have no issue playing RAW in deference of the exact details of my model. Funnily enough, I normally play both casual games, and care more about my army than the exact rules behind it.

So yeah. I forsee 0% of people I play against objecting, as it happens, even if I did use them as sponsons.


Regardless, the model as stands does seem pretty short sighted. Hull mounts at the rear of the vehicle's sides, genius.

It has nothing to do with tournaments. Your intent is to gain an advantage that the unit was not intended to have. Cheating is cheating.

If you don't care about the rules, can I put give a vindicator a turret mount so that I fire the S10 ap1 large blast at anything within 360?

Can I model my dreadnought weapons on top of the dread so it can fire over a rhino without being seen back?

Can I add 12" to my tank barrels to get more range?

What your claiming is no different than any of these examples.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
Regardless, the model as stands does seem pretty short sighted. Hull mounts at the rear of the vehicle's sides, genius.

Positioned right where the doors are, so anyone getting in/out will potentially get shot by their own transports weapons?

 BarBoBot wrote:
It has nothing to do with tournaments. Your intent is to gain an advantage that the unit was not intended to have. Cheating is cheating.

If you don't care about the rules, can I put give a vindicator a turret mount so that I fire the S10 ap1 large blast at anything within 360?

Can I model my dreadnought weapons on top of the dread so it can fire over a rhino without being seen back?

Can I add 12" to my tank barrels to get more range?

What your claiming is no different than any of these examples.

>even if I did use them as sponsons.

>even if I did

>even if

I don't intend to model it with the express purpose of getting wider fire arcs. It's so my model doesn't look dumb.

It's a local gaming group full of sane and reasonable people, anyway (aka completely unlike Dakka in every single way). We have all sorts of conversions and counts-as models. Some tanks have different layouts, some models are different heights, some gun mounts are different. And we enjoy the fluffy side of our games and have zero trouble coming to am amicable agreement about throwing the occasional rule out of the window because it's dumb as a brick.

My point was, if I cared to try, the locals wouldn't care because it's me making my model look not extra special and then playing it as looks. My gosh, reasonable people, wherever did they come from?

 grendel083 wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
Regardless, the model as stands does seem pretty short sighted. Hull mounts at the rear of the vehicle's sides, genius.

Positioned right where the doors are, so anyone getting in/out will potentially get shot by their own transports weapons?

For a design they apparently had artistic freedom with (enough to to fully detail the interior, even though you can never see it in game), there sure are some suspect design choices. Fixed fire line- through the disembarking points! Geeneus!

Oh I get it now. You change rules via house rules, and anyone who thinks it should be played as the model was made to be, is unreasonable.

So my vindicator with turret mount is A-ok in your book and anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable....

 BarBoBot wrote:
So my vindicator with turret mount is A-ok in your book and anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable....

You know, a Razorback type layout with a LR Demolisher turret on top would look quite sweet...

And bear in mind Brachiaraidos did say he would be prepared to play it as stock in a tournament situation...

Rule of Cool...

In a tournament situation he would have no choice. Its the TO's call.

The fact that he says he would play it as RAW in a tournament shows that his intent is to MFA in non tournament games, or he wouldn't have made that distinction.

I'm all for awesome looking conversions. I have a couple conversions myself, but I would never model anything to gain an in-game advantage. Its not something I'm interested in. I don't want to cheat to win.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The fact that he says he would play it as RAW in a tournament shows that his intent is to MFA in non tournament games, or he wouldn't have made that distinction.

Bear in mind you havn't asked how he would treat it in a friendly game if his oponent objected.

Did I have to ask? He said that his group uses house rules and that its unreasonable for anyone to object.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Did I have to ask? He said that his group uses house rules and that its unreasonable for anyone to object.

After you accused him of cheating
I'm just politely suggesting that niether side should jump to conclusions, you're both getting a little heated.

If one group plays one way, and one the other then fair enough.
It's only when the two come together that we should judge what is reasonable or not.

Personally I'm in the middle ground. Friendly games I'm fine with a bit of MFA if it isn't taken to extreams and fits well with the fluff/theme.
A tournament I'm more inclided to insist they play it as stock.

BarBoBot, allow me to underline something for you.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
My point was, if I cared to try...

If. If is an important word here. It's a hypothetical. See also the 'even if' in my initial response. Every post since my intention to model it as a weapon mount has been a hypothetical. And hypothetically, my local group don't care and I'd have no issues playing it mounted.



All of this has been in response to your broad ass "If your converting the model to gain an advantage that its not supposed to have, its called modeling for advantage. Good luck finding opponents who don't mind that your cheating."

As I said. I like pretty models. Taurox needs some work. We gonna get back on topic?

Well, I do consider it cheating, and I call it as I see it.

Turning your hull mounted weapons into sponsons isn't fluffy in any way. Its just a way of gaining an advantage because you dont like the limited fire arc.

I don't see it as any different to my previous examples. Dread arms on top of the dead so you can see over a rhino isn't fluffy. Same applies here.

Edit* you can keep pointing out that you said if, but its meaningless.

You also said that you would play it differently in tournaments, and the only reason to make that distinction is if your not playing it that way in non tournaments.

You went on to say that not only do you and your group do conversions that change a models height, shape, etc, but you said you also play it as the model looks post-conversion.

Your "if" that you keep referring to is not nearly as telling as the rest of your statements.

I stand by everything I said.

Clearly it would be RAW in a tournament, whatever it looked like.

If I were in my local group, to rebuke what you said, a lot of conversions happen and we often don't mind, and use models as shown for simplicity. One land raider has a custom gun mount that's a little further forwards than normal. Do we care? No, it's too much fuss to try and find where it was originally and the model looks good for it.

I've made all of this just as an example to rebuke your accusation that sponson mounted hull guns would somehow get me no games because everyone would be morally outraged. Which was, and is, still nonsense.

I never said I would play it differently. But I did say I clearly wouldn't in a tournament, and that if I did out of one it wouldn't really make a difference. And that no matter how I play it, I'm going to model it with weapon mounts regardless, because I want my model to look nice.