Placing the razorback turret forward?

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.

**WonderAliceLand**

Is it legal to place the razorback turret forward instead of in the back position featured on the box.?

**BlackTalos**

Ryan_A wrote:
Is it legal to place the razorback turret forward instead of in the back position featured on the box.?

Pure RaW? No.

Rule of cool / conversion model / accepted in the gaming world? Yeah, go for it, as long as you're not just trying to gain 0.5" of range....

**JinxDragon**

Pure Rules as Written:
No Answer!

Rules that dictate exactly how to assemble a Model are absent in the Rulebook itself. The few snippets of Rules we do have are far more concerned if we paid Game Workshop for the parts we have used, by setting the tone the Rules are designed for Citadel approved models and those models alone. In previous editions a handful of Rules have existed to demand certain things from Models, "What You See is What you Get" mostly if I remember the elders right, but Seventh seems more interested in having the right base, with little care to how the model is positioned on it. Some have tried to use the assembly instructions and other pictured sources as the official positions a Model is allowed to be in, to much debate. Either way, the number of errors and missing design changes within said instructions would make them very poor Rules if they are more then guide-lines.

How I would Play It:
I'm fine with all conversions, a unique and well designed model is far more valuable on so many levels then cookie-cutter!
The players attitude to how they use said conversion can be another matter, but that doesn't need a Rulebook to resolve.

**BlackTalos**

Actually Jinx, i have currently been using these rules, let me know if you disagree with the train of thought:

BlackTalos wrote:
[Snip]
From the Space Marine eBook:

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.

So i look in the Defenders of Humanity section, and can see a Space Marine holding a Lascannon.

It must have undoubtedly be made following the "build rules" of the Devastator box set, but as per the quote above, i may use the model as a Tactical Squad marine with Lascanon option.

The above RaW would mean that as long as you buy say 2 Tac boxes, 3 Dev boxes, 8 Vet boxes, etc, your collection should include all the "options" available to all squads as you have the "models".

Some possibly relevant RaW:

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

In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together,(...)

3 - Unit Profile: This section will show the profile of any models the unit can include, even if they are upgrades.

5 - Unit Composition: Where applicable, this section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.

So i would conclude, by strict RaW, that:
- You must build models as instructed from manuals in the Boxed Sets of models.
- You may select options for your Units (List writing first)
- You may select models, as shown in "Defenders of Humanity", to match these options and field that squad on the table.

Suddenly, the reason why "Defenders of Humanity" contains all possible options with clear pictures make sense to me, by RaW lol

**Nevelon**

Just turning the back plate around so the turret is more central? Shouldn’t be a problem. Re-building it so it’s closer to an immolator, with the guns far forward (where the SB is on a rhino)? Might be an issue, but I highly doubt it.

This is a trivial modeling change, I can’t see any reasonable person getting bent out of shape over it. I’d have to go trolling for pictures to prove it, but I would not be surprised if GW had official pictures using both positions.

**DeathReaper**

BlackTalos wrote:
Actually Jinx, i have currently been using these rules, let me know if you disagree with the train of thought:

BlackTalos wrote:
[Snip]
From the Space Marine eBook:

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.

So i look in the Defenders of Humanity section, and can see a Space Marine holding a Lascannon.

It must have undoubtedly be made following the "build rules" of the Devastator box set, but as per the quote above, i may use the model as a Tactical Squad marine with Lascanon option.

The above RaW would mean that as long as you buy say 2 Tac boxes, 3 Dev boxes, 8 Vet boxes, etc, your collection should include all the "options" available to all squads as you have the "models".

Some possibly relevant RaW:

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

In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together,(...)

3 - Unit Profile: This section will show the profile of any models the unit can include, even if they are upgrades.

5 - Unit Composition: Where applicable, this section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.

So i would conclude, by strict RaW, that:
- You must build models as instructed from manuals in the Boxed Sets of models.
- You may select options for your Units (List writing first)
- You may select models, as shown in "Defenders of Humanity", to match these options and field that squad on the table.

Suddenly, the reason why "Defenders of Humanity" contains all possible options with clear pictures make sense to me, by RaW lol

Examples are not an exhaustive list though so that means literally nothing.

**BlackTalos**

DeathReaper wrote:
Examples are not an exhaustive list though so that means literally nothing.

Sure, but it is expressed permission to build the models as found in the "Examples". You might need permission from another source (Building instructions from the box?) in order to model them any other way.

**rigeld2**

So your assertion is that it's illegal to model a Broodlord with any options? There's no instructions in the clampack (that I can recall) and the only image we have is the default build in the codex.

Carnifexes are also not shown in multiple builds that are legal according to the army list.

Ditto Hive Tyrants.

And I'd bet that there isn't an image of literally every build possible for SMs in the "Defenders of Humanity" section of the SM codex. I'd put money on it, in fact.

**jeffersonian000**

Razorbacks with forward turrets are called Immolators, and those belong to the Sisters. Are you telling me your Marines want to dress their Razors in drag?!?!?

SJ

**JinxDragon**

Counters in point form, I have to get to work:
Format change for the Rules in question - We now use Unit specific Datasheets so an Army List specific Rule is going to vanish when properly updated.
A specific Codex - Do any similar Rules even exist in other Codex's? If not then only Space Marines are bound by this one.
A Faulty Picture - Are any of the Models in the picture positioned in different to assembly instructions for cinematographic purposes, carrying war-gear they do not have access to, have clearly defined Units in violation to max/min unit sizes or model composition?
Leap of Logic - The Rule quoted could be used to prove the pictured presented are the only 'Rule as Written' poses but the rest of it requires us to make a few leaps.
The least amount of leaps leaves me with this concision: The picture is the only way to pose that particular Model, a Restriction that would over-write any permission presented by 'maybe' options or what comes in the box.

Actually, PM a link to that thread for me!
I can't do anything at work any more, too busy, but I will definitely read it when I get home as you might have a broken Rule that does force Space Marines to take specific options.... and I so love chuckling at breaks like those.

PS:
I so loved that comment, and if the concept wasn't already done I would recommend a Marine Chapter in drag!

**BlackTalos**

rigeld2 wrote:
So your assertion is that it's illegal to model a Broodlord with any options? There's no instructions in the clampack (that I can recall) and the only image we have is the default build in the codex.

Carnifexes are also not shown in multiple builds that are legal according to the army list.

Ditto Hive Tyrants.

And I'd bet that there isn't an image of literally every build possible for SMs in the "Defenders of Humanity" section of the SM codex. I'd put money on it, in fact.

You are correct, so i fall back to "having to find other examples", as the RaW quoted provides only come of the examples.

I can say that assembly manuals are permissions, but if that conclusion cannot be made then by the RaW above would greatly restrict Options for models...

**easysauce**

BlackTalos wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So your assertion is that it's illegal to model a Broodlord with any options? There's no instructions in the clampack (that I can recall) and the only image we have is the default build in the codex.

Carnifexes are also not shown in multiple builds that are legal according to the army list.

Ditto Hive Tyrants.

And I'd bet that there isn't an image of literally every build possible for SMs in the "Defenders of Humanity" section of the SM codex. I'd put money on it, in fact.

You are correct, so i fall back to "having to find other examples", as the RaW quoted provides only come of the examples.

I can say that assembly manuals are permissions, but if that conclusion cannot be made then by the RaW above would greatly restrict Options for models...

you are not quoting RAW though, you are trying to assert that instructions, and pictures are rules, which just isnt true.

While many people may agree on the general principal, your distinction between what the pictures and instructions justify in actual model assembly is extremely ambiguous and has your own personal bias on it. The instructions never set angles for the assembly of joints on models, and leave out plenty of other things as well.

But you will look at a picture of one model and say "this models joints are ok to put at any angle" then look at another model and unilaterally delcare those joints "must be at angle X"

That they might be examples is fine, but its not an exhaustive list, so it means nothing and GW themselves has plenty of pictures of models that you have or would call out as MFA.

At the end of the day, all MFA rules are in fact made up house rules, and need to be discussed and agreed upon so that we are *all* working with the same houserules, not someone elses personal idea of what they should be.

**kingbobbito**

It'd be the same as modeling all of your leman russes with extended barrels..... not against the rules but you'd be TFG for modeling for advantage.

While there's no rule saying I can't make the barrel on a demolisher cannon 8" long, would you want to play against someone that modeled all of their vindicators that way?

**easysauce**

kingbobbito wrote:
It'd be the same as modeling all of your leman russes with extended barrels..... not against the rules but you'd be TFG for modeling for advantage.

While there's no rule saying I can't make the barrel on a demolisher cannon 8" long, would you want to play against someone that modeled all of their vindicators that way?

its not quite the same, your example is *modifying* a model or a conversion, its not the original dimentions. Your example crosses pretty much everyone's line in the sand.

What IM talking about is simply how you assemble the legal, unmodified, model, IE just the pose.

its comparable to how you place a dreadnaught or IK on its base in some cases,

IE if you put your model far forward on its base, it gains some range from its weapons.

is that MFA?

conversely, putting the model farther back gains you range in that direction?

again, MFA?

GW has plenty of models, that the pose you choose affects how they play in game, gaining some advantages and or losing others.

All my marines are kneeling, is that MFA when they get cover or can hide?

all my marines are standing, is that MFA when they can all see over stuff the kneelers cannot?

which is the illegal pose, kneeling or standing?

**kingbobbito**

easysauce wrote:
kingbobbito wrote:
It'd be the same as modeling all of your leman russes with extended barrels..... not against the rules but you'd be TFG for modeling for advantage.

While there's no rule saying I can't make the barrel on a demolisher cannon 8" long, would you want to play against someone that modeled all of their vindicators that way?

its not quite the same, your example is *modifying* a model or a conversion, its not the original dimentions. Your example crosses pretty much everyone's line in the sand.

What IM talking about is simply how you assemble the legal, unmodified, model, IE just the pose.

its comparable to how you place a dreadnaught or IK on its base in some cases,

IE if you put your model far forward on its base, it gains some range from its weapons.

is that MFA?

conversely, putting the model farther back gains you range in that direction?

again, MFA?

GW has plenty of models, that the pose you choose affects how they play in game, gaining some advantages and or losing others.

All my marines are kneeling, is that MFA when they get cover or can hide?

all my marines are standing, is that MFA when they can all see over stuff the kneelers cannot?

which is the illegal pose, kneeling or standing?

If I see a dreadnought teetering at the far front of his base instead of being even remotely centralized, feet hanging off the edges? Yes, that's most certainly MFA.

As for your issue with posing marines, it doesn't hurt anything. A standing marine gets the same cover in ruins as a crouching one. If I can't shoot you, you can't shoot me. And keep in mind, you can buy crouching models and there are instructions to assemble them. It'd be within reason to have tac marines crouching. But if you model, say assault marine lying on their stomachs? MFA.

The only reason to model a razorback with the turret forward would be to get an extra inch added to your shooting range, no downside. MFA. Also, the instructions and every picture GW produces of a razorback has the gun at the back. Just because it's possible to assemble a model incorrectly for an advantage doesn't mean it's okay.

How about this... nothing says the turret on my leman russ has to be on the top. Why can't I have it stretching off the front of the tank? You can easily attach it there to get a few extra inches of range. It's not "modifying" the model in any way, I'm only using parts that GW sold me in the leman russ kit.

**WonderAliceLand**

kingbobbito wrote:

How about this... nothing says the turret on my leman russ has to be on the top. Why can't I have it stretching off the front of the tank? You can easily attach it there to get a few extra inches of range. It's not "modifying" the model in any way, I'm only using parts that GW sold me in the leman russ kit.

Is that the place the model has a spot to put it in or do you have to not use the slots the model has for those parts? The razorback has slots that fit both forward and backward facing turrets.

**Kriswall**

Ryan_A wrote:
kingbobbito wrote:

How about this... nothing says the turret on my leman russ has to be on the top. Why can't I have it stretching off the front of the tank? You can easily attach it there to get a few extra inches of range. It's not "modifying" the model in any way, I'm only using parts that GW sold me in the leman russ kit.

Is that the place the model has a spot to put it in or do you have to not use the slots the model has for those parts? The razorback has slots that fit both forward and backward facing turrets.

The backward position is for Razorbacks. The forward position is for Predators. That's what the instructions indicate, at least. Assembling the model in a manner other than indicated in the instructions (putting a piece in backwards, thus moving a weapon mount position) is most certainly modifying the model. You could also glue the top hatch with the hole in it in a vertical position and then glue the gun on top of that. To quote the above... "I'm only using parts that GW sold me...". This is clearly ludicrous. Any deviation from the instructions is a modification. The majority of modifications are benign and have no impact on the game (I want to put the spotlight over here!). Some aren't benign and DO have game impact. How much impact is allowed is a house rule issue between two people.

HIWPI... Run free, you unique and beautiful butterfly. I'll still play you, but I'll rib you mercilessly about how you assembled your model with a piece on backwards. I'll constantly remind you that the models come with instructions and that I'll be happy to read them out loud for you if the words are too long for you.

Seriously though, if you're the sort of person who regularly converts and paints models, I'll allow just about anything. If you're the sort of person who never paints models and makes modifications purely to gain in game advantage... well, I'll be much stricter in requiring adherence to standard assembly. Both scenarios might have in game impact, but only one is accompanied by a lack of good sportsmanship.

**maceria**

kingbobbito wrote:

How about this... nothing says the turret on my leman russ has to be on the top. Why can't I have it stretching off the front of the tank? You can easily attach it there to get a few extra inches of range. It's not "modifying" the model in any way, I'm only using parts that GW sold me in the leman russ kit.

Then your Leman Russ would lose SO MUCH of its fire arc that it would be very easy to force you to choose between pointing your armor at what you don't want killing you, or pointing your gun at what you want to kill.

In the Razorback example, you gain, what, 1/2" forward? You also lose that backward. You also move the blind spot from the front to the back. Nothing here is really an advantage.

**God In Action**

I always think that rules debates about model to this fine a level of detail, and about exact base sizes, is rather futile. You just can't make a RAW argument for something there just aren't enough rules for. Not only that, but most of the time modelling, unlike game rules, should really be one of those cases that shouldn't need a strict RAW approach.

**Kriswall**

God In Action wrote:
I always think that rules debates about model to this fine a level of detail, and about exact base sizes, is rather futile. You just can't make a RAW argument for something there just aren't enough rules for. Not only that, but most of the time modelling, unlike game rules, should really be one of those cases that shouldn't need a strict RAW approach.

You would think... but modeling for advantage can be so insidious that it helps if we're able to draw a line and say "this is what the rules say". We're trying to establish if the rules have anything to say on the matter.

**BlackTalos**

easysauce wrote:
kingbobbito wrote:
It'd be the same as modeling all of your leman russes with extended barrels..... not against the rules but you'd be TFG for modeling for advantage.

While there's no rule saying I can't make the barrel on a demolisher cannon 8" long, would you want to play against someone that modeled all of their vindicators that way?

its not quite the same, your example is *modifying* a model or a conversion, its not the original dimentions. Your example crosses pretty much everyone's line in the sand.

What IM talking about is simply how you assemble the legal, unmodified, model, IE just the pose.

its comparable to how you place a dreadnaught or IK on its base in some cases,

IE if you put your model far forward on its base, it gains some range from its weapons.

is that MFA?

conversely, putting the model farther back gains you range in that direction?

again, MFA?

GW has plenty of models, that the pose you choose affects how they play in game, gaining some advantages and or losing others.

All my marines are kneeling, is that MFA when they get cover or can hide?

all my marines are standing, is that MFA when they can all see over stuff the kneelers cannot?

which is the illegal pose, kneeling or standing?

It is very much a philosophical existential question... But we can agree that the BrB refers to "models".
Then we have this RaW, possibly different in some codices:

ARMY LIST ENTRIES
Each entry in the army list represents a different unit. More information about the background and rules for the Space Marines and their options can be found in the Adeptus Astartes section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Defenders of Humanity section.

That is the only RaW i can find on the subject. If you think there is more, please use RaW to answer this:

The BrB refers to "models" (hope i don't need quotes for this). What is a "model" ?

**AtlasTelamon**

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

**Kriswall**

I just posted this in the Fire Raptor thread, and since both threads are about the same thing... I'll copypasta it here.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore.

To summarize...

1. There is no requirement in the rule book to assemble your models using the instructions provided or that they be painted. The rule books provide examples of assembled and painted models, but do not provide a comprehensive list or gallery of acceptable models.

2. Deviating from the instructions provided with a model can grant in game advantage. This is typically referred to as modeling for advantage. Some people require an element of intent to be present for a conversion that has in game impact to be labelled as modeling for advantage. Others don't require any intent. As such, the criteria for what constitutes modeling for advantage will vary between players. The core rules have nothing to say about modeling for advantage.

3. Modeling for advantage is almost universally frowned upon. It is generally considered to be unsportsmanlike behavior. If you deviate from the provided instructions when assembling your models, you should be prepared for some players to have issues when playing you. These issues can range from mild annoyance to an outright refusal to play you based on how extreme the deviation is. You should also be prepared for some organized play events (e.g., tournaments) to refuse to let you play with your converted models.

4. Modelling for advantage can be totally overlooked in the presence of the Rule of Cool. The Rule of Cool states that if your conversion is cool enough and sports an awesome paint job, people are likely to overlook any modeling for advantage elements and grant you far more leeway than they would to a poorly assembled and unpainted model.

Lastly...

5. Assembling your models per the included instructions avoids all of the issues mentioned in this thread. No tournament or player will turn you away for having your models assembled per the standard assembly instructions. If you are likely to play against strangers, or in organized play events, it is to your direct advantage not to convert your models. If you only play with a limited number of people, simply talk to them and formalize some house rules surrounding how specific conversions will be handled.

You'll note that at no point did I discuss what in game advantage is actually gained. It's irrelevant. If you deviate from the included instructions, some people will take issue. They are completely within their right to do so just as you are completely within your right to assemble your models however you want.

HIWPI... I love conversions, but always play them as though I had the stock model. I would never knowingly claim an in game advantage from a model I had converted. I also rely heavily on "Rule of Cool". I'll allow just about anything if the conversion is well assembled, painted AND the player is friendly. If the model is poorly assembled, unpainted or the player is a competitive jerk... well, I'll politely ask before the game that we pretend the model is stock for game purposes.

**DarknessEternal**

You gain no advantage over centralizing the Razorback turret over placing it to the rear, and just facing it differently.

It doesn't matter.

I can't be modeling for advantage if there's no advantage.

**Kriswall**

DarknessEternal wrote:
You gain no advantage over centralizing the Razorback turret over placing it to the rear, and just facing it differently.

It doesn't matter.

I can't be modeling for advantage if there's no advantage.

While I agree that there is no issue of MFA when there is no advantage...

If you deploy your Razorback on the line and intend to move forward and shoot, you gain some range. That's a small, but measurable advantage. Might not be game changing, but then again... that extra inch of range might let you target, shoot at and Wound the Warlord, gaining a VP and winning the game.

**jeffersonian000**

You can gain range by simply flipping end for end after moving, which some people do. Placing the turret in the middle actually reduces overall range in exchange for keeping front AV pointing forward. Flipping side-on adds nor subtracts range, making the point moot.

SJ

**kingbobbito**

DarknessEternal wrote:
You gain no advantage over centralizing the Razorback turret over placing it to the rear, and just facing it differently.

It doesn't matter.

I can't be modeling for advantage if there's no advantage.

How is an extra inch of shooting not an advantage? If the gun's in the back and you're an inch short of shooting your target, you need to turn the thing backwards to get them in range. I'm pretty sure showing your weakest armor facing to your target is a bad thing.

**DarknessEternal**

The gun is on a 360 degree turret, and the side armor is the same as the front armor.

There's no advantage in range no matter where the turret is placed.

**Ghaz**

DarknessEternal wrote:
The gun is on a 360 degree turret, and the side armor is the same as the front armor.

There's no advantage in range no matter where the turret is placed.

What if there's no room to pivot the vehicle? Seems to me in that case you would have gained an advantage placing the turret further forward on the Razorback

**GearheadXII**

Rule of cool. I don't mind either way. Hell, I have a rhino that is set up as a razorback with the Havoc Launcher where the RB turret would be. Still a rhino and can still shoot out of the top with the models inside.