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 don't believe I am still reading this thread let alone responding ...

OK - like it has been said repeatedly: Show the rule?

WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

To be honest, if it wasn't for WYSIWYG and requirements on using 'official' models (BTW ForgeWorld is actually recognized by GW to be completely official), we could play with cardboard boxes, soda cans, and little green army men with the living room as the battlefield.....

IF someone thinks that is opponent is MFA and has an issue - if you are at a tourney - get the TO and ask, otherwise - either don't play them or suck it up, buttercup!
< / rant >

Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

If you are changing your model because you think it will look cool, keeping the same measurements/gun placement/etc (or offering to count it as being the same if anyone objects), then very few people will have any problem with your conversions.

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.


In this case, it is just the simple definition of "MFA". As soon as your reasoning starts involves "I get extra range on my flamer" you are meeting the textbook definition of MFA. There is really no way to argue about this, the OP even admits the in-game advantages of doing it.

GW wrote: This box set contains one multi-part plastic Space Marine Land Raider. This large 101-piece kit can be assembled with the twin-linked lascannon sponsons towards the front or the back of the vehicle, and has a working assault hatch to the front.

Putting guns on the front hatches of the Land Raider is obviously acceptable and not modeling for advantage. After all, GW tells you you can do it in the product description. Anyone who won't let you put them there (and take all measurements accordingly) is someone you probably don't want to play against anyway

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

Sigh.

That has no basis in the rules in the BRB.

Unless you have a page and graph reference that says otherwise.

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

It's actually not in the rulebook.

 wowsmash wrote:
I think your fine. GW encourages us to convert and alter the models for variety.

One thing that does suck was you ruined my idea. I wanted to loot a landraider and stick a big cannon on top for my orks looted wagon and now I can't :(. Never thought about the KFF thing.

As a looted wagon, nothing stopping you.

Looted wagons can be based on anything, or even scratchbuilt, as long as it's clear how and where the gun (s) are mounted. There is no official Looted Wagon model, because that would totally defeat the point.

Loot a LR, Loot a tau Manta if you want. Legally speaking, it's all the same. In game it's still going to be an inferior rhino chassis, possibly posing as an inferior Basilisk..

A Battlewagon, though, has an official model and thus is open to attacks of MFA if you use a larger frame than the official one.

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. It is a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to play. most tournaments make it a rule, though.

MFA is also covered in some tournament rules packages.




For the issue at hand - There are no rules allowing conversions, but there are no rules that actually cover assembling your models at all. The rules simply assume that you are using 'Citadel Miniatures'... which can certainly be interpreted to mean the models as they are 'supposed' to be built.

When you start altering models, you start to create small changes in how those units function in the game. But in a game where the RT-era Space Marine-sized Eldar Avatar is treated as the same unit as the current giant sword model and also as the same unit as the Mr Giganto Forgeworld model... most of the time it really doesn't matter.

If you're doing something that is clearly abusive, like adding foot-long gun barrels to your tanks, or putting sails on your trucks to block LOS, then people are going to call you on it. But small changes for style reasons... The vast majority of gamers aren't going to care.

The Landraider door issue has been well and truly blown all out of proportion by this point. Refer to the assembly instructions as a binding pact with the Lord Almighty if it makes you happy, but at the end of the day very, very few people are going to either notice or care which door you mount the guns on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
A Battlewagon, though, has an official model and thus is open to attacks of MFA if you use a larger frame than the official one.

Theoretically, yes. I've received nothing but positive comments about mine, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:
WYSIWYG is a RULE that can be pointed out in the rulebook - clear cut and the like. Friendly games tend to skimp on it - but it is enforced at tourneys (most state it on the info).

MFA is a player constructed idea so that the games are less about who can be most creative in getting things to their advantage. IF MFA was a RULE, it would be in tournaments, there would be a page number that can be referenced, etc.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. It is a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to play. most tournaments make it a rule, though.

MFA is also covered in some tournament rules packages.

OH - didn't it used to be? sorry if I misspoke....and I had never seen MFA in any touney info....

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.

And that is completely fine...they can walk and take the lose...fine with me...if the TO tells me otherwise - I will stand by whatever they say...

STILL - IT IS A GAME!!!! If someone flips one way or another....whatever...it is not like you are getting anything out of this than knowledge and fun

Peregrine, I'd still like to hear your opinion on banning FW Land Raiders as using them is obviously MFA. There cannot be different rules for same unit depending on how much I paid for the model. Either all Land Raiders can have their lascannons in front or none can.

I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

 Crimson wrote:
Peregrine, I'd still like to hear your opinion on banning FW Land Raiders as using them is obviously MFA. There cannot be different rules for same unit depending on how much I paid for the model. Either all Land Raiders can have their lascannons in front or none can.

Forgeworld design their vehicles independently of the GW design studio. They don't always follow the normal rules... The whole point of the pre-heresy Land Raider that you pictured is that it is different to the normal one.

Here's my two cents:

Good God this thread, and some of the opinions in it, is just stupid. As a 15 year veteran, it makes my insides hurt if the validity of arguments like this are now considered as a legitimate part of the current state of the game.

It used to be that having the lascannons fit either slot on a Landraider was considered to be, wait for it... a cool way to decide where you liked the looks of them.

I have a Land Raider with the sponsons in the back that is from the initial year that it was ever released for Chaos (with the good old spiky bitz sprue), and every damn picture on the box, illustration and studio models alike, have the lascannons mounted in the front slot. I'm pretty sure the instructions even list that it's up to the player to choose which mounting point they want to attach it to.

So the argument is nil, in my opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

Forgeworld design their vehicles independently of the GW design studio. They don't always follow the normal rules... The whole point of the pre-heresy Land Raider that you pictured is that it is different to the normal one.

Right, but it is intended to be used as standard Land Raider. Are you saying that Citadel Land Raider can't have it's lascannons in front but the more expensive model for the exact same vehicle can?

I just had a horrible thought..

I have two Redeemers. I built the first one by following the instructions, but as I had already built one, did the second on the fly.

Does this mean I can't legally field the second one?

(Facetious I know, but I'm trying to highlight how ridiculous some of the posts in this thread are getting)

 Crimson wrote:
Right, but it is intended to be used as standard Land Raider. Are you saying that Citadel Land Raider can't have it's lascannons in front but the more expensive model for the exact same vehicle can?

Personally I couldn't care less where you put the sponsons.

But your choice of models does have an impact on the rules. Even ignoring the front/rear door thing, that FW landraider has around a 120 degree fire arc on its sponsons, while the GW model has around 200 degrees.

The same is true of the 2nd/3rd ed era predator compared to the current model.

The FW Avatar has a vastly different LOS profile and base size to the GW model.

Your choice of flight stem changes how your skimmers and jetbikes function, as does the choice of standing or kneeling legs for Firewarriors or Guard.


All just part of the silliness that is the 40k ruleset, and why MFA in anything but really extreme cases really isn't that big a deal.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

Only post worth reading in this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

But your choice of models does have an impact on the rules. Even ignoring the front/rear door thing, that FW landraider has around a 120 degree fire arc on its sponsons, while the GW model has around 200 degrees.

The same is true of the 2nd/3rd ed era predator compared to the current model.

The FW Avatar has a vastly different LOS profile and base size to the GW model.

Your choice of flight stem changes how your skimmers and jetbikes function, as does the choice of standing or kneeling legs for Firewarriors or Guard.


All just part of the silliness that is the 40k ruleset, and why MFA in anything but really extreme cases really isn't that big a deal.

Well exactly, and that't why this is silly. If there are several legal kits for the same unit it cannot be MFA to model one kit so it is similar to the other.

Of course one thing that seems to have been missed here is that the FW one only gives you the LC version, the one where sponson placement has the smallest impact (because of the 48" range guns). You can't make the ones with shorter-ranged guns, where an extra 2" makes a big difference, using the FW kit. So it clearly isn't MFA (since you aren't modifying the model), and it isn't "buying for advantage" since the advantage is minimal.

And I still don't see how anyone can look at a situation where someone is building a model with the intent to give their flamers 2" more range, the textbook definition of MFA, and say that it isn't MFA.

Games are won or loss by fractions of inches. My God Hammers are all magnetized. I have seen the changes in tournament level back in 2008. The changes were from being back mounted to being front mounted. "Why did they did that", I asked them. "To get those 2 extra inches in shooting", they replied back at me. Sure as hell not for artistic reasons. To keep things honest I had to place my own weaponry more to the front like everyone else so I won't be at a disadvantage when competing against them.

That is when I understood that the mentality of the game and the hobby as a whole was starting to change into something that I would not have my grand kids get into this part of the hobby.

Presently this is a common thing to put your God Hammer weaponry in front than in the back. So when I play an opponent I look what he has in LR and place my weapons on my LR accordingly.

So, Peregrine, you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the kit is designed for the sponsons to go on either hatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it's worth, my redeemer is built from the FW Proteus, with the old-style sponsons. Nobody has commented on the placement of the weapons to date.

Games Workshop is a modeling company first.
Rules company second. /thread

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh.

This is really not complicated:

The instructions tell you how to build the model, including where to place the gun.

If you are changing your model because you think it will look cool, keeping the same measurements/gun placement/etc (or offering to count it as being the same if anyone objects), then very few people will have any problem with your conversions.

If you are changing your model because it will give you an advantage in the game then you are MFA. Some people may still allow it (especially if it is minor), but they are entirely justified in refusing to play against you unless you count it as the standard model.


In this case, it is just the simple definition of "MFA". As soon as your reasoning starts involves "I get extra range on my flamer" you are meeting the textbook definition of MFA. There is really no way to argue about this, the OP even admits the in-game advantages of doing it.

Character models do not come with any sort of instructions. Neither do some other models in the range. Does that mean you have to field them in pieces??

So your definition of MFA is based purely on the modelers intent rather than the actual appearance of the model. That throws MFA as any sort of rule right out the window. I can model for advantage and tell everyone I did it because it looks better and the entire point becomes moot since your definition requires player integrity. If tourneys taught me one thing, many players lack a lot of that stuff.

If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

This.

It's very simple: if your conversion is purely an aesthetic one you'll have no problem measuring from the back position and there's no conflict at all. The conflict only happens if you want to "convert" your model and then claim the advantages of the new gun position.

Paitryn wrote:
Character models do not come with any sort of instructions. Neither do some other models in the range. Does that mean you have to field them in pieces??

We're not talking about some strawman game where your opponent refuses to allow you to convert a bolter marine to carry a melta gun. Even though it's technically RAW (IMO at least) it isn't relevant because nobody is actually going to play it that way. This thread is about modifying a model to gain an advantage.

 insaniak wrote:
So, Peregrine, you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the kit is designed for the sponsons to go on either hatch?

And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

Exalted...and my dear lady, you made this whole time reading this thread worth it.....

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're doing it for looks then obviously you'd have no issues playing as if it was modeled the "correct" way, right?

I would have issues with that. Messing about pretending that models are something different to what is actually on the table is just too much bother in a game that has rules that cause models to function differently based on which pair of legs you choose to glue on.

If you don't want to accept my converted model, that's fine. Plenty of other potential opponents out there who aren't taking these rather dodgy rules quite so seriously.

 Peregrine wrote:

And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

You've had at least a couple people in the thread now point out that this isn't, or at least hasn't always been always the case.

The last landraider I bought had it shown as optional. I'm not going out to buy a new one just to check if the instructions have changed and rendered my landraider theoretically illegal. It was assembled as per the instructions with which it was supplied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And really, this idea that mounting the weapons forward is some game changing exploit is even more silly when you realise that you can achieve the exact same outcome, perfectly legally, just by using the old land raider model, which is shorter and has the weapon mounts closer to the front...

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course one thing that seems to have been missed here is that the FW one only gives you the LC version, the one where sponson placement has the smallest impact (because of the 48" range guns). You can't make the ones with shorter-ranged guns, where an extra 2" makes a big difference, using the FW kit. So it clearly isn't MFA (since you aren't modifying the model), and it isn't "buying for advantage" since the advantage is minimal.

If you cared about the advantage being minimal, you would not have started this nonsense in the first place. Let's at least be consistent with this insanity: if putting lascannons in front on Citadel raider is MFA, then getting FW models is buying that exact same advantage with money. That is plenty of reason for any tournament to ban FW models.

And I still don't see how anyone can look at a situation where someone is building a model with the intent to give their flamers 2" more range, the textbook definition of MFA, and say that it isn't MFA.

You mean like this?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I tried modelling for advantage once. Sadly, my boobs weren't nice enough for the shoot.

I just laughed for a good few minutes. This post right here made the WHOLE thread worth it.



At this point in the thread, everyone is too stubborn. Peregrine isn't changing his opinion (despite it looking like the minority, and quite a few people have made interesting counter-arguments), and he isn't doing a good job of making others change theirs, so I don't see this going too far...

 Peregrine wrote:
And the instructions (apparently) tell you to put the guns on the back hatch.

So you've not seen the instructions in question, and are arguing from a position of.... What? Guesswork?