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.

So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

This is nothing to do with 'entitlement'. It would be a ridiculous ruling to make.

 insaniak wrote:
So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

It has to do with intent.

If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

The OP clearly states that they have directions saying "rear only" and want to gain an in-game advantage by putting them up front instead. This is textbook MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

And yet in both cases, the model that winds up on the table is the same.

So what advantage are you getting, exactly?

 insaniak wrote:
So what advantage are you getting, exactly?

Again, it's about intent. You can complain all you like about how it doesn't make enough of a difference to care, but the moment you start changing things because you want to gain an in-game advantage you are MFA.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, it's about intent. You can complain all you like about how it doesn't make enough of a difference to care, but the moment you start changing things because you want to gain an in-game advantage you are MFA.

It's not a matter of 'enough of a difference'... it makes no difference.

If the end result is two identical tanks, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the sponsons are placed where they are because I think it's tactically superior, because the instructions say to do it that way, or because the Ghost of Christmas Future took you on a trip through time and space and showed you that your life would be miserable if you glued them somewhere else.

Intent matters not a jot in this instance, because the end result is possible to do completely and utterly within the rules. Whether or not you're doing it because you think it will give you an in game advantage is irrelevant when it doesn't.

So tell me this then: should I be able to put modern terminators on 25mm bases (which will be very helpful when they arrive by deep strike) just because old terminators used to work that way and it's still legal to have terminators on 25mm bases?

I don't have a problem with it, no.

It would be a little hypocritical of me to say otherwise, since I've been telling people for years that whichever base they use on their jetbikes is fine, since GW have supplied them with a bunch of different size and shape bases over the years... and if it's good for unit A, it's good for unit B.

The fact that GW have steadfastly refused to define base sizes for units, and have changed the bases from a whole swathe of models over the years, creates a situation where two models can be exactly the same in every other way, but have different bases which results in them functioning differently in game.

It would be a trifle silly to complain about 25mm-based modern termies when the player could just field 2nd edition termies for the same result.


Added to which, opinions are still quite divided as to just which way changing the base becomes an advantage. There are in-game advantages to both smaller and larger bases compared to the other.

Hmm, lascannon range is 48", common gaming table width is 48". Failing to see the "advantage" that a forward mounted lascannon would give. LRC's with forwrd mounted hurricanes also don't seem to give a significant advantage as the LR is a trasport and therfore has to move forward in order to fulfill its role, when that happens a 2" advantage or disadvantage becomes a wash.

Example: LRC is at the extreme edge of deployment zone with HrB's in the front position, it's fire can cover the 'no-man's-land' without moving. An LRC with rear-mounts must move to accomplish the same area of effect. By it's very role a LR must move or else it becomes wasted points. Therefore any loss/gain of 2" is negligible when it is used correctly. When a LR is positioned correctly it will be perfectly able to affect a large area of the table.

If you can get it to the center, you can effectIvely control a 48" diameter area with a LRC regardless of whether the sponsons are in the front or rear positions.

I know some will try, but there is no disputing this.

.02

xraytango wrote:
Example: LRC is at the extreme edge of deployment zone with HrB's in the front position, it's fire can cover the 'no-man's-land' without moving. An LRC with rear-mounts must move to accomplish the same area of effect. By it's very role a LR must move or else it becomes wasted points. Therefore any loss/gain of 2" is negligible when it is used correctly. When a LR is positioned correctly it will be perfectly able to affect a large area of the table.

Now what if you want to move towards and shoot a target 29" away. If you mounted your guns in the front slot you can move up 6" and shoot it. If you mounted your guns in the back slot you move up 6" and fall short by 1" (assuming the distance between positions is 2"). And this is not just a hypothetical scenario, I've had many cases where 2" of extra range on a 24" weapon would mean the difference between being able to shoot and wasting a turn without shooting.

Move up then dismount. Termies use stormbolters 24" range, no less than what a LRC has, only disadvantage is that they don't have the TL capabilities of a HrB.

And don't forget about you TL asscan!

There are many ways to reach out and touch your opponent.

The point Peregrine is trying to make is that mounting the sponsons fore instead of aft gives them a little extra range... and because he considers the current assembly instructions to be binding, that means that you have given your vehicle a slight advantage that it wouldn't otherwise have.

Unless it was an older tank, that had instructions that allowed for either mounting.

There's no question that your choice of mounting makes a difference to how the vehicle functions in the game. But it's no more a cause for concern that any of the other myriad modeling choices that we can make that affect how our units function. The game is designed around the physical models, without locking those physical models into specific forms. And without that framework, sweating over one tank getting an 'extra' 2" of range when an identical tank can also get that same 2" of range with (apparently) no cause for concern just seems a trifle silly.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

I feel like this should be the point where it goes /thread

You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

And we all can (hopefully) agree that to actually pursue the notion in a real-life setting would be both (likely) inconclusive (without evidence), as well as TFG behavior.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:
You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

Not really, because as I have explained after that point, there is no advantage being gained so long as land raiders can be legally fielded in that configuration.

It's in 'Tactical Marine Sergeants with power axes are MFA' territory.

@Peregrine

The OP is making a a Land Raider, these instructions are different from the LRC / LRR kit which clearly states that the flamers go on the front sponsons. So please stop using the flamers as a reference to your argument as these are not outdated instructions but the current ones that tell you to put them on the front. I just made 2 of them for my Deathwing so my memory is fresh on this subject...
You can carry on using other references for your argument but just not the flamers as every time you say it you're in fact wrong.

GW currently produces Land Raiders that has front lascannons (FW Mk II B).

Saying that you cannot your put lascannons in front in Citadel raider but can in FW one makes just as much sense as saying that you cannot give all your Deathwing terminators lightning claws as they do not come in the box.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

The model lets you put them onto the front without any alteration to design. The SM codex even shows examples of Crusaders and Redeemers with guns on the front hatches.

"Conversion", for someone who doesn't model or paint, may mean "Place somewhere I didn't think about", but this model expressly allows it.It isn't just a possibility, it is designed to be like that. If I fething wanted to, I could place one front and one rear and you still couldn't tell me it's MFA because the model allows it naturally.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Peregrine I do not know what you read but not once have I ever stated "can I do Y to gain an extra two inches?" I suggested you go reread my OP and stop putting words in my mouth. My issue was clearly one of convieneonce since I want to use the kit as multiple land raider chassis. Not "I'm a douche and I want 2 inches of extra range, pleas confirm?"

I simply pointed out that I perceived these issues and wanted the communities opinion. Obviously you guys have some reading comprehension issues

Here is what I stated in OP:

"While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?"

I am honestly annoyed how some of you have tried to misconstrued my original intent. I think some of you guys need to take a deep breath.

Still laughing at this thread.

This is too funny.

No one is getting anywhere. And on top of THAT, the OP even said just above that you guys completely misunderstood what his point was so you are arguing using points (specifically Peregrine who has referenced the OP's intent multiple times) that he didn't even make.

This site worries me about the state of human sanity sometimes...

Anyone calling this MFA is the TFG, rather than the TFG being the one doing the modeling. There's nothing saying you have to put a pintle-mounted weapon in that hatch, or sponsons up front or rear.

I put them on the rear because it only makes sense. I already have a disembarkation hatch at the front, so it's logical to have the other two at the rear. Plus what kind of an idiot soldier would place them at the rear and thus preventing firing them while troops disembark? For me the range advantage is only conincidental.

And on top of it all? BT Codex was the first to have the LRC as far as I know. How is the LRC modeled there? Guns up front in every single picture where they are visible, except the army list drawing. A lot of GW's newer official pictures have them that way, even if some have them another way. But from their point of view it clearly doesn't matter, regardless of what the instructions say. I mean what next, the Razorback can't have a LasPlas loadout because it's not in the instructions and thus putting it there would clearly be MFA?

I personally have two LRCs, of which one isn't even out of the box yet. But you can bet they'll be mounted up front for the reasons mentioned. And anyone who has a problem with that can feel free to suck a big fat Vindicator barrel

While I may come off as serious, I gotta say that threads like this make giggle in disbelief. I know it's a cliche, but... why so serious? Especially about plastic soldiers.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Peregrine I do not know what you read but not once have I ever stated "can I do Y to gain an extra two inches?" I suggested you go reread my OP and stop putting words in my mouth. My issue was clearly one of convieneonce since I want to use the kit as multiple land raider chassis. Not "I'm a douche and I want 2 inches of extra range, pleas confirm?"

I simply pointed out that I perceived these issues and wanted the communities opinion. Obviously you guys have some reading comprehension issues

Here is what I stated in OP:

"While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?"

I am honestly annoyed how some of you have tried to misconstrued my original intent. I think some of you guys need to take a deep breath.

Ok, i guess I can try to refocus the discussion, here goes...

Don't worry about being TFG, It doesn't really matter which door you put it on. Sure if you want your Hurricane Bolter to be closer, then thats great, because you now have a side hatch 2 inches farther from the front, which if you are trying to charge a unit after disembarking that might put you short. If charging from a side hatch is more important than putting a weapon closer, then you can model the sponson in the back, and your hatch is now two inches closer.

I guess what I trying to say is is that it doesn't matter, since GW has put either weapon in either spot, so can you without fear. The weapon in front puts the door two inches back though, but most people probably charge from the front end hatch anyway, so this case i guess is moot *shurgs*

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So you seriously don't see the lunacy behind suggesting that someone building a landraider manufactured yesterday is modelling for advantage while someone building the same landraider the same way is just fine due to the kit being manufactured 5 years ago?

It has to do with intent.

If you build an old Land Raider which gives you permission to put the sponsons in either position you're just following the directions.

If you look at the directions for your new Land Raider, see that the sponsons only go in the rear position, and decide "nah, I think I'll put them up front so my flamers get extra range" you're MFA.

The OP clearly states that they have directions saying "rear only" and want to gain an in-game advantage by putting them up front instead. This is textbook MFA.

Ok.....What if I built one Landraider ten years ago, and then buy another one tomorrow? Am I forced to build the latter differently from the former because the instructions may have changed on the same kit?

If I build them both like the older one, and then field them both in the same game, is one making me guilty of MFA, but the other one right next to it is just fine because it's older, so in that case I'm safe, because "back then I was just making it to my personal preference and the instructions said I could"?

I swear, taking part in this thread is like reading a book in a Cthulhu RPG- risking insanity.

Deciding another's intent is a slippery process at best. To merely assume someone is trying to cheat because they've assembled a model slightly differently than what you believe to be 'correct' is a classic case of 'TFG'.

If I have a choice of buying two previously assembled land raiders, one with sponsons in front and another with sponsons in back, according to the mindset of some here I'd be MFA if a pick the 'non-standard' one, even if it were $10 cheaper. Seriously?

On a side note, the range boost is not 2" but about 1 3/8", but who's counting?

 amanita wrote:
Deciding another's intent is a slippery process at best. To merely assume someone is trying to cheat because they've assembled a model slightly differently than what you believe to be 'correct' is a classic case of 'TFG'.

If I have a choice of buying two previously assembled land raiders, one with sponsons in front and another with sponsons in back, according to the mindset of some here I'd be MFA if a pick the 'non-standard' one, even if it were $10 cheaper. Seriously?

On a side note, the range boost is not 2" but about 1 3/8", but who's counting?

Pretty much this. If your going to be a TFG an start the arguement at the table. I'm just going to simply tell you to prove it. Since your not a mind reader good luck proving intent or whatever other nonsense you want to spout off. Either play or clear off so somebody who wants to play can do so.

In Peregrine's and The Captain's utopia: Most 3rd Party Mini companies are non-existent, there are no more Orks, and all non-standard miniatures are illegal.

You're missing the point. All models have various ways of assembling them. The guide that comes with the model are guides, not instructions; they suggest how it can be assembled, unlike instructions, which say how it should be assembled.

I now raise you a question; if the model comes with a big selection of extras, i.e. an Ork Trukk, and one of the extras aren't in the guide, if I glue it on, is the model automatically illegal? Say I choose to give the driver a different head?

Oh, and there is no rule about modelling. GW promotes conversions more than anything. Show us the rule.

 Crimson wrote:


Saying that you cannot your put lascannons in front in Citadel raider but can in FW one makes just as much sense as saying that you cannot give all your Deathwing terminators lightning claws as they do not come in the box.

I've seen this/and smililar strawman(s) in here a few times. "Well, if I have to follow the instructions, then I can't make this conversion or that conversion /gotcha"

But really guys? Really? Do you honestly believe its the same thing?

 TheCaptain wrote:
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.

I've already stated this, answering your question. You can only put options where the instructions tell you to put them.

But if the Codex tells you that you can have something, and there are no corresponding instructions for how to assemble them, then you have no one telling you what to do. No rules. You could take those lightning claws and jump on the bed with them. Eat dessert before breakfast with those lightning claws. Stay up after midnight with those lightning claws.

Or mount them wherever you like on your DW terminator, if the instruction doesn't tell you where to do it. Because the Codex tells you that you can take them.

-TheCaptain


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Oh, and there is no rule about modelling.

MFA isn't a rule. It's a concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel like this post needs another reference.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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.

I feel like this should be the point where it goes /thread

You agree with the notion that it is MFA by technicality if one is misfortunate enough to have said more-strict instructions.

And we all can (hopefully) agree that to actually pursue the notion in a real-life setting would be both (likely) inconclusive (without evidence), as well as TFG behavior.

-TheCaptain

It seems people are straying from the topic, and have begun addressing how "TFG" it is to call someone on MFA, or how hard it would be to prove. No one is debating that. It would be very TFG. And nigh impossible to prove.

But TECHNICALLY, if you have the instructions that say "PUT SPONSONS BACK HATCH BRO", then bro, they go on the back hatch.

Modeling for advantage is when you model your model differently than the instructions instruct, and you garner an advantage from that.

This is not a rulebook rule. This is not a law. It is a concept that any model may or may not fit into. It is a yes or no question.

By definition, if you look at your "They go back hatch, bro" instructions, and say "Nah, front hatch." then you are MFA. In the tiniest, most insignificant way, you are MFA.

Yes, no one will care, and anyone that does is an arse, but by factual definition of the term, MFA is in place.

-TheCaptain

I understand what TheCaptain and Peregrine are saying, but I still haven't seen the rules quite that says "model instructions must be followed to the letter" and I don't recall seeing any rule as such. I think this is important, and would have ramifications far beyond the Land Raider insanity.

If the instructions for SM show the kneeling figure with a ML, does that mean Its MFA to use the kneeing legs on any other model type? Or that MLs can only go on the kneeling figure? One of my Speeder instructions didn't show any weaponry, but my Ravenwing box set had extras - does that mean its MFA to put weapons on THAT Speeder, but not others?

Heck, my instructions say clearly to glue certain pieces in, yet I've chosen to magnetize some. MFA?


And I realize you claim it's a concept, not a rule, but you're applying rules (measure from rear placement) to e concept, so I'd like to know how far you'd expect to extend that concept to be followed.

I'm going to model a landraider thats designed to run up a flank with both lascannons on the same flank, because I can, because they fit, and because it's called modeling.

There obviously are certain common expectations on how the models are to be assembled, but I've no idea how the instructions would be any more authoritative than the official art and the pictures of assembled models.

SavageRobby wrote:
I understand what TheCaptain and Peregrine are saying, but I still haven't seen the rules quite that says "model instructions must be followed to the letter" and I don't recall seeing any rule as such. I think this is important, and would have ramifications far beyond the Land Raider insanity.

If the instructions for SM show the kneeling figure with a ML, does that mean Its MFA to use the kneeing legs on any other model type? Or that MLs can only go on the kneeling figure? One of my Speeder instructions didn't show any weaponry, but my Ravenwing box set had extras - does that mean its MFA to put weapons on THAT Speeder, but not others?

Heck, my instructions say clearly to glue certain pieces in, yet I've chosen to magnetize some. MFA?


And I realize you claim it's a concept, not a rule, but you're applying rules (measure from rear placement) to e concept, so I'd like to know how far you'd expect to extend that concept to be followed.

If you're modeling your model against the instructions and you gain any in-game advantage from it, no matter how insignificant it might seem, you are "Technically" modeling for advantage.

If you have unintentionally modeled your model to garner an advantage, and your opponent feels that you have done so, then, if the advantage is unintentional, one typically should have no problem using the model in question "As If" it were modeled normally.

For instance, I have my Cadian Snipers laying down. Will I claim they are out of LoS by anything on even slightly lower terrain than them? No. Whenever they are shot, I claim LoS as if they are standing Cadians. Because that is fair. That is how the Cadian Sniper is assembled in the instructions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 juraigamer wrote:
I'm going to model a landraider thats designed to run up a flank with both lascannons on the same flank, because I can, because they fit, and because it's called modeling.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but I'm glad you posted it.

This is the very same concept as the one in discussion. Except more excessive. It merely better illustrates that if you don't put the sponsons where the instructions say, advantages are gained unfairly.