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.

Personally I could not tell what instructions from any kit say. Hell, I'm not sure if they even come with instructions, they probably do. Never looked at them.

The fact the sponsons fit on 2 positions and the original cover seem to point towards more than one legal build.

PIC:

I have the instructions for the redeemer kit I bought a little while ago. In the instructions the completed picture of the redeemer has the sponsons on the front, while the instructions for building it just show the dotted lines going to the back spots. So in one set of instructions the kit 'rules' have shown the builder that "GW made the front and back the same so you can switch the sponsons" - no conversions. The kit instructions show both ways through the completed picture and the actual building instructions - in this case I suspect GW figured it was so obvious you could put them in either slot that they didn't need to draw dotted lines to both. If GW only wanted them to go into the back slot they could have modelled the pieces to only fit one way - they didn't - and they showed examples of both ways. Remember this is the short range gun where it is supposed to be more of an issue (as opposed to the lascannon).

MFA can be an issue - this argument is just absurd.

Hey, why not- this is fun! More fuel for the flames...note the sponson locations on official GW artwork.





Not technically part of the argument, but for good measure:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

That Forgeworld Land Raider is actually based on the very first MKIII Land Raider miniature from Epic 40,000.


So it's not actually a Forgeworld design, but an upscale of an old GW model.

Regardless, I have to commend The Captain for recognizing his awful wrongness. Maybe peregrine will realize the error of his ways and take flight.


Thread Exit is that way <-

I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter why you converted it, the end result on the table is what matters in practical terms. Players can refuse to play someone for any reason, they don't need to 'justify' it unless its a tournament in which case it's a matter for the judges. Why nitpick about the exact instructions in the GW kit when the company encourage conversions? If you can't handle a reposition on one part how do you cope with extensive conversions or something like Ork looted vehicles?

Two of the most annoying things coming from 40k players at the moment are people who MFA, and people who whine about MFA. This is entirely due to GW and their true line of sight and overly literal representation of the battlefield using miniatures. If you simply measured ranges from the centre of the vehicle in all cases the positioning of weapons wouldn't be an issue. The preoccupation with MFA is quite sad IMO.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hey, why not- this is fun! More fuel for the flames...note the sponson locations on official GW artwork.

OK, I just grabbed that issue off the shelf and flipped to page 22, where there is an article on how to build your land raider.

Under stage 2, (side armor assembly) substep 2 it is written:

"2. Now decide if the front or back hatchways will have the lascannon sponsons in them. The sponsons and the sliding door/datascreen/tool rack do not go in the same hatchway. Once you've decided which hatchways you're going to place the sponsons in, put the sliding door in place and glue the data screen/tool rack in the other hatchways. (see box below)"

The box below is captioned "Positioning Sponsons" and include the text "You have the choice of positioning the lascannon sponsons to the front or the back of the tank. Here are the options:" and two pictures, one titled "To the back" and the other "To the front" which display the TLLCs in the appropriate positions.

Now this is a very old reference, and might have been superseded by other sources. But is pretty definitive in it's message.

Going to say that this is kind of a pointless thread when dealing with the sponsons.. if you have them rear mounted and want the best firing arc... drive the dam thing backwards, if you want the best firing arc and they're mounted in the front.. drive normally.

 Fifty wrote:
I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

It's a toss up between Ailaros and peregrine. I suggested a cage match to determine the overall most stubborn person on dakka!



@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
I am actually starting to enjoy this thread. I've never seen anyone more stubborn than Peregrine.

It's a toss up between Ailaros and peregrine. I suggested a cage match to determine the overall most stubborn person on dakka!



@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

Except he's technically right.

People are so flustered by it that they refuse to acknowledge it, but GW can put a million pictures of sponsons all over their tanks. They could put out a picture of a Leman Russ with Sponson-mounted Thunderhawks on the front, back, top, and bottom hatches, but if the instructions say "Put X sponson in Y position" and X sponson is a Flamestorm Cannon and Y position is on the back hatches, then despite the picture, the instructions are clearly telling you what you can do, and where you can do it.

If you refuse to follow instructions for assembly in order to garner an advantage, then that is, by definition, MFA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Regardless, I have to commend The Captain for recognizing his awful wrongness.


Thread Exit is that way

Excuse me?

A. This is remarkably rude.

B. Your point had no basis in fact. Please allow me to illustrate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm still waiting the rule quote which says that assembly instructions are part of the rules but the modelling section isn't.

Does the modeling section say "Sponsons can go anywhere you please?".

The point where your "logic" collapses.

So, if the instructions are hard, uncompromising rules for how the model is supposed to be put together, are not the pictures of the models being used in games in official Games Workshop material not also hard, uncompromising rules for how the models are supposed to be used in the game?



I'll be waiting. We all will.


But nobody will blame you if you show yourself to the Thread Exit.

Do the pictures in the models being used in games in official Games Workshop material say "this is how you use them in game"? Or do they say "This is how they should be put together"?

No. The only thing you can infer from those pictures is that GW has models built that way, and they took pictures of them. Those are the only facts presented.

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y" If you ignore this, or place X somewhere else for an in-game advantage, this is, by definition MFA. And ignoring clear instructions.

If you'd like to show me where one of these pictures say "You can build your Landraider like this, too, in addition to how the instructions tell you to" then I will concede my point and, as you put it, "Exit the thread"

-TheCaptain

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

Yes they do... The FW ones don't, but the GW kit does.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:


@ ninjafommando - the weapons don't swing a full 180 so driving it backwards would give you even less arc.

um the sponsons should be able to swing all the way around. which would give the lascannons mounted on rear a "larger" firing arc.

The entire post is only about the position and firing arc of the sponsons. It doesn't matter if you can't hit stuff with the heavy bolter, because your either firing on a target that needs to be taken out with a lascannon or your firing the heavybolter at something and should of taken a different pattern of land raider.

also where are you playing that has people this anal about landraider sponsons? you might want to play agianst different people or go different store if they care that much about it.

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

When my friend built his it also said to put them in either position.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

 insaniak wrote:
Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.


Anyway, I don't see why this is so controversial. The OP openly admits this is a case of "the instructions say to do X, can I do Y instead so I can gain 2" longer range," which is a textbook case of modeling for advantage.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

However, the instructions for Citadel Miniatures clearly say "Put X in position Y"

Speaking of ignoring things... Again, the instructions for the last GW landraider I bought said to put them in either position.

Who's ignoring anything?

I only am saying "If you put something somewhere the instructions don't say to, you're MFA"

I ignore nothing, I am all seeing

But seriously. I'm not saying you can't put sponsons in position A or B, I'm saying put them where the instructions say to. Both I and Peregrine have said "If the instructions say differently, then follow the instructions. We aren't familiar specifically with the Land Raider instructions."

We're speaking as a whole on the subject of MFA. Specifically, the idea of going against the instructions.

Won't do you any good.

They'll just claim that it was photoshopped

 Peregrine wrote:

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.

Which proves nothing more than that the instructions have changed at some point. I would guess when they updated to the plastic redeemer and crusader.

Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other... Unless you're going to insist on seeing the manufacturing date of the kit every time someone puts a land raider on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And the OP, who just recently built one, is saying that the instructions DON'T give you a choice.

Which proves nothing more than that the instructions have changed at some point. I would guess when they updated to the plastic redeemer and crusader.

Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other... Unless you're going to insist on seeing the manufacturing date of the kit every time someone puts a land raider on the table.

It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Which makes it more of a Moral thing.

If Insaniak and I play a game, and he has sponsons on the front, and tells me "This is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position" then I might as well believe him(you). Because, like you say, the only way to prove it really would be to ask you for your manufacturing date, which is ridiculous.

But if I buy a new kit and it DOES in fact say "Put them on the back", and I play someone, I can just as easily say "this is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position", and unless my opponent is willing to check my manu. date, he might as well believe me.

But in situation 1, you are morally clean. In situation 2, I would be lying, and MFA. But both of us likely would get away with it. In your case, due to truth, and in my case, because despite my lying, the issue is too diifficult for the opponent to bother pursuing further, and instead they'd likely just accept me as probably telling the truth.

 washout77 wrote:

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't make a habit of hanging onto instruction sheets for a decade after buying the kit...

This thread is updating faster than I can refresh the page...

 insaniak wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

Can someone please just take a picture of that line on the instructions sheet so it can be proven to everyone who seems to ignore this piece of info that renders this whole thread moot

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't make a habit of hanging onto instruction sheets for a decade after buying the kit...

Fair enough. Although, I could likely rummage through my pile of crap on my desk and find papers I thought I got rid of years ago.

My instructions sheets usually end up in the bottom of the box the model came in, and that box is thrown somewhere to store something unrelated in and I forget all about that paper just to find it 3 years later "cleaning"

So if I put my Rogue Trader Land Raider on the table, is it MFA? It has a much smaller profile, but it's an official citadel miniature and therefore legal.

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other...

How is it pointless? The OP openly admits that the instructions don't permit it. The only question here is "can you build a model differently to gain an advantage", and that's textbook MFA.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Nope, again, in a game where a model's LOS profile is determined for the entire game, every game, on whether or not you choose to use kneeling legs or standing ones, it's a pointless piece of sophistry.

If Insaniak and I play a game, and he has sponsons on the front, and tells me "This is from back when the instructions said to put them in either position" then I might as well believe him(you). Because, like you say, the only way to prove it really would be to ask you for your manufacturing date, which is ridiculous.

Prior to this outbreak of lunacy thread, what reason would I have had to be aware that the instructions had changed?

If an opponent with a Land Raider of the same vintage as mine drops it on the table and you try to tell him that the instructions say the sponsons have to be on the back, he's not going to say 'Oh no, this was from back when...' He's just going to say 'No they don't'.

Unless you're going to start carrying around Land Raider instructions with you to prove the point, it's absolutely pointless to even mention it in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Which makes out pointless to try to insist on one way or the other...

How is it pointless? The OP openly admits that the instructions don't permit it. The only question here is "can you build a model differently to gain an advantage", and that's textbook MFA.

It's pointless because the instructions used to allow it. And arguing that your landraider can have the sponsons on the front, but only if it's more than 5 years old is ridiculous.

It's also pointless because, as I pointed out earlier, you can achieve the same result by just using the RT-era Landraider, which has only a single mount for the sponson, which is closer to the front.

When you can achieve the exact same result as your 'MFA' completely legally, it's completely pointless to insist that your 'MFA' is actually 'MFA'... At that point, it's just 'MLOPDI' (Modelling Like Other People Do It).

 insaniak wrote:


If an opponent with a Land Raider of the same vintage as mine drops it on the table and you try to tell him that the instructions say the sponsons have to be on the back, he's not going to say 'Oh no, this was from back when...' He's just going to say 'No they don't'.

Unless you're going to start carrying around Land Raider instructions with you to prove the point, it's absolutely pointless to even mention it in the first place.

It's actually quite relevant in Tournaments. MFA becomes a very significant issue, and if your opponent or the TO can produce instructions that say "They have to go in the back" and you can't produce yours that say "Put them anywhere" then, well, likely you're going to be found MFA by the Tournament Organizer, and they'll likely just have you measure from where the available instructions say the guns would go.

It's pointless because the instructions used to allow it. And arguing that your landraider can have the sponsons on the front, but only if it's more than 5 years old is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous, but not wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's still not pointless, it just becomes less easy/impossible for the accuser to prove.

Nope, again, in a game where a model's LOS profile is determined for the entire game, every game, on whether or not you choose to use kneeling legs or standing ones, it's a pointless piece of sophistry.

You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:
You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

This. The OP asked "is this modeling for advantage", the answer is yes, it's a textbook case of modeling for advantage. As soon as your reasoning starts with "I gain an extra 2" for my flamers" you are modeling for advantage, and I don't know how anyone can possibly argue with that. You can say it's too minor or you personally wouldn't care about it, but it's still MFA.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's actually quite relevant in Tournaments. MFA becomes a very significant issue, and if your opponent or the TO can produce instructions that say "They have to go in the back" and you can't produce yours that say "Put them anywhere" then, well, likely you're going to be found MFA by the Tournament Organizer, and they'll likely just have you measure from where the available instructions say the guns would go.

If a TO seriously tried to rule that a landraider's sponsons have to be on the back, the far more likely outcome is for at least one of his players to pack up and walk out the door.

It's ridiculous, but not wrong.

Being ridiculous should be an indication that it's not the 'right' interpretation, regardless of how 'correct' it may seem by the book.

You may find the point pointless to discuss, but evidently the OP wants to discuss it, and the debate was never "Is this worth arguing about?" but what the factual ruling is for the discussion at hand.

I didn't say it was pointless to discuss here. The question was asked, and deserves an answer. My point was that bringing it up at the table would be pointless... for the reasons discussed here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
This. The OP asked "is this modeling for advantage", the answer is yes, it's a textbook case of modeling for advantage. As soon as your reasoning starts with "I gain an extra 2" for my flamers" you are modeling for advantage, and I don't know how anyone can possibly argue with that. You can say it's too minor or you personally wouldn't care about it, but it's still MFA.

Except that in this case, it's only modelling for advantage if your landraider came with one specific version of the instructions. Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

If one person can legally have his sponsons wherever he pleases, another person with the same model should be able to do the same.

 insaniak wrote:
If a TO seriously tried to rule that a landraider's sponsons have to be on the back, the far more likely outcome is for at least one of his players to pack up and walk out the door.

Yes, we all know that some players feel that they are entitled to minor MFA and other similar things, just like some players feel that they are entitled to RAI or their personal house rules and would pack up and walk out if a TO tried to enforce RAW on plenty of other things. That doesn't make it any less MFA.

Which makes it technically modelling for advantage, but completely unenforceable, and unfair to try to hold anyone to it.

I never said it was enforceable, I said it was MFA. The thread is "is this MFA", not "will the average person refuse to play me if I do this". And the answer is yes, it is MFA, because the OP admits to doing it to get extra range from their flamers.