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.

I mounted my razorback's turret forward because it looked better, simple as. I would say you're perfectly entitled to do so for one reason: As you know the top plate on which the turret fits has a reverse side, which you're presumable allowed to use as an alternative. On it are engine grilles, instead of the 2 small hatches on the "normal" side. The engine grilles should be at the rear (there's no logical reason why the engine would be located forward in the troop area of an IFV. That means the turret ring is in a forward position. Now arguably this plate is intended solely for use with the predator, but that's a matter of debate.

Also supporting this: Some pred's have turrets mounted far back (deimos executioner) and others right at the front (2nd edition era predator annihilator). As far as I'm aware it's still perfectly legit to use a 2nd ed pred in a tournament. My feeling is that GW are deliberately not setting specifics on turret placement issues, and it's the right choice -nobody wants to hear that all their old tanks are now illegal.

I'd allow it, purely for rule of cool reasons.

if you were only supposed to model the turret in the back position, then GW shouldn't have made it where you can model it the other way.

Also, I only allow people to use the original Razorback. Anyone that doesn't isn't a real gamer.



Edit: I have no idea why it has a flamer on the front. I didn't build the bottom chasis. I just painted it and slapped the Templar gak on it.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There is no other definition for the term "model" in the rulebook so we must assume that the term only refers to Citadel miniatures. If the rulebook hinted at other kinds of miniatures then the argument could be made that the definition is actually incomplete.

Except, that's not a definition of 'model' either. Its a statement that citadel miniatures will be refereed to as models. Not that models are citadel miniatures. As I said earlier it infers such a relationship but i does not command one.

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

It is a definition of the term "model". Is it the definition? No, it would have to be written as: "In the rules you may encounter the term "models". Models are Citadel Miniatures (Miniatures sold under the Citadel Brand)." so I will concede that it isn't clear cut whether or not the only valid type of miniatures for the purposes of gaming are Citadel miniatures.

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, sand wouldn't invalidate the "Citadel Miniature-hood" of the model as GW sells sand specifically for basing purposes. Just don't get caught using that cheap, aftermarket sand.

Or God forbid the stuff that you can get for free on a beach!