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.
JamesY wrote: We'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said, I have no problem with people building their models how they want for their collection. When it comes to gaming, however, it does affect the other person. You were right when you said before that it's just a game, but that's it, it's a game intended to be fun. Debates about legality of dodgy building and the advantages that might be gained detract from that fun. If you are happy to play against it yourself, then I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. It just won't be right for me.
I have to agree, Now I would most certainly not want to argue such things at a game nor a tournament. and for tournament play I think running such a thing would be a bit out there and cause more trouble than it was worth. Looking back I was fairly rude and apologize for this rude behavior. It was indeed as unnecessary as trying to mount 2 guns on one side of a land raider. On top of it all after rereading something i had misread a post Kriswall Which I feel absolutely silly for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
carldooley wrote: I seem to recall that one of the reasons to mount the sponsons on the back of a Land Raider Crusader was the 16 occupant capacity. If you put the weapons in the front, you may not be able to get your full squad out of the tank at once.
I also remember this being the case. while it was not a "rule" per say it was easier to get all the units out of the front if the guns were rear mounted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/02 16:19:39
Does that make it a FW model or a citadel model at that point?
It is a Citadel Base model for certain, but then you are adding parts from a different manufacturer(owned by the same company does not matter); and you are certainly not building the base model with the Citadel instructions(they have no instructions for the lascannons).
FWis Citadel.
No, both are subsidiaries of games-workshop ltd.
FW is a semi-independent producer of models, none of the basic 40k rules are written with FW in mind(and many of their kits drastically change the base Citadel models).
WW & Carldooley: Current transport rules are very different from what they once were. In the Old editions the unit disembarked(or embarked) within 2" of the access points(and had to remain in coherency after), so a 16 model unit did have trouble with the rear doors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/02 16:56:22
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
Does that make it a FW model or a citadel model at that point?
It is a Citadel Base model for certain, but then you are adding parts from a different manufacturer(owned by the same company does not matter); and you are certainly not building the base model with the Citadel instructions(they have no instructions for the lascannons).
FWis Citadel.
No, both are subsidiaries of games-workshop ltd.
FW is a semi-independent producer of models, none of the basic 40k rules are written with FW in mind(and many of their kits drastically change the base Citadel models).
How so? Could you please cite any example of these many kits that cause a drastic change? By drastic, I refer to model height for purposes of LOS and vehicle hull increases.
Also, I'd quote Peregine's sig here, FW is completely fine in compatibility for 40k games and armies.
And being owned by the same company DOES matter quite a bit. After all, Chapterhouse stuff isn't well liked by GW: FW is.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:My response to seeing you put the two sponsons on one side would be "Why?" Why would you do it if it gives no inherent advantage? You claim it's not an issue, so you wouldn't have a problem if I asked you to make them mirrored?
The instructions in the kit, and in every GW publication show mirrored sponsons. Put them as far forward or as far back as they fit, yes, but never both on one side.
Why would you want them on one side anyways? It's not for fluff or rule of cool, in either case. Therefore, I'd assume MFA.
And if it isn't that much of a deal, please could the sponsons as mirrored, if you please, as per conventional modelling.
Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but as far as I know, if you assembled both sponsons on one side, you end up with an upside down sponson on one. So, clearly not normal or intended. Unless you can show me a successful version from one kit?
I Disagree
Spoiler:
It seems that you might indeed be able to assemble 2 right or left gun mounts. now to use them as left and right guns one must then be turned upside down or the gun must be turned 180 degrees so the armor plate is facing inward as opposed to out. But at first glance I think one could build 2 one sided guns but they would only work properly as one sided guns after that point. unless you used a lot of magnets and some skill.
I will unfortunately not be able to test this as I have no new land raider plans, I will most certainly not go buy one to indulge a forum on the internet.
Judging from your image and my own experience with Land Raider kits, if you tried sticking two sponsons from one kit onto one side, one gun would either face backward (which is never seen on any GW models) or be upside down, which is clearly not as intended. Those kits are designed to have two sponsons, one on either side, facing forward with the plate on the outside.
My bubble is not "burst" if they can not be mounted to one side. It really has no bearing on how I play and to me it truly does not matter. I would face such a land raider as it does not pose any unusual threat that is not posed by the normal land raider. Why would someone make it this way? Someone might think it looks cool but that is subjective and as all subjective things is not true nor false but it seems there's not a clear answer on where you must mount them. I don't think GW sees it as important or else would they not have a rule somewhere? the land raider is not a new model and anyone who has even looked at one can clearly see that the weapons could potentially be mounted purely on one side or to the front and rear. At some point this must have come up and been asked if not with the land raider with a different model.
So, if it doesn't affect how you play, why do you want to have two one side?
As previously said, Redeemers get a pretty big buff from it, and I could see an advantage with it by driving it up flank forward allowing it to have a larger blocking face, and all guns could target one unit.
You are correct, cool IS subjective. But not when cool trumps gameplay mechanic. In every situation, GW have assembled their LRs with mirrored sponsons. Not only that, but having two on one side actually affects rules. That's the main problem.
Looks "cool" and doesn't affect gameplay? That's fine. Looks "cool" and affects gameplay? I'm sorry, but that's not quite right.
We can't say that GW doesn't care about it, citing a lack of ruling, because GW have always had problems with their rules. However, they have mentioned assembling it with Citadel miniatures, which implies following the instructions and using common sense when it comes to conversions.
Now if it is the case that this is a MFA model then what else could be MFA? Does a have inch tall base make a model MFA? What about a reposed model? We all know GW makes some models with bland poses so if it is slightly lower than normal is that model now MFA? Does fitting magnates offer an advantage? Clearly it does to, be able to switch out weapons is a clear money saving advantage and to be able to field many different types of a vehicle has a game play advantage on a local lvl. Doing such a thing is clearly not intended by following the instructions in the box.
How is fitting magnets an advantage? Assuming that the magnets never make the model any larger in any areas (ie, perfect fit), ow does it give an advantage in a game setting? Swapping out weaponry is done before or after the list-writing phase, so cannot affect the actual game. Therefore, not MFA as we describe it. Honestly, I have no idea how well fitted magnets could be classed as MFA in any sense.
We are clearly dancing on a gray line that everyone is calling black and white.
Correct. Why must we dance on this line? The models never show a vehicle with sponsons on two sides. What is the need to have them on two sides? I am genuinely curious for answers here.
Looking back I was fairly rude and apologize for this rude behavior. It was indeed as unnecessary as trying to mount 2 guns on one side of a land raider. On top of it all after rereading something i had misread a post Kriswall Which I feel absolutely silly for.
No worries pal, we've all lost our cool in the heat of debate. Passion for the hobby.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:My response to seeing you put the two sponsons on one side would be "Why?" Why would you do it if it gives no inherent advantage? You claim it's not an issue, so you wouldn't have a problem if I asked you to make them mirrored?
The instructions in the kit, and in every GW publication show mirrored sponsons. Put them as far forward or as far back as they fit, yes, but never both on one side.
Why would you want them on one side anyways? It's not for fluff or rule of cool, in either case. Therefore, I'd assume MFA.
And if it isn't that much of a deal, please could the sponsons as mirrored, if you please, as per conventional modelling.
Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but as far as I know, if you assembled both sponsons on one side, you end up with an upside down sponson on one. So, clearly not normal or intended. Unless you can show me a successful version from one kit?
I Disagree
It seems that you might indeed be able to assemble 2 right or left gun mounts. now to use them as left and right guns one must then be turned upside down or the gun must be turned 180 degrees so the armor plate is facing inward as opposed to out. But at first glance I think one could build 2 one sided guns but they would only work properly as one sided guns after that point. unless you used a lot of magnets and some skill.
I will unfortunately not be able to test this as I have no new land raider plans, I will most certainly not go buy one to indulge a forum on the internet.
Judging from your image and my own experience with Land Raider kits, if you tried sticking two sponsons from one kit onto one side, one gun would either face backward (which is never seen on any GW models) or be upside down, which is clearly not as intended. Those kits are designed to have two sponsons, one on either side, facing forward with the plate on the outside.
My bubble is not "burst" if they can not be mounted to one side. It really has no bearing on how I play and to me it truly does not matter. I would face such a land raider as it does not pose any unusual threat that is not posed by the normal land raider. Why would someone make it this way? Someone might think it looks cool but that is subjective and as all subjective things is not true nor false but it seems there's not a clear answer on where you must mount them. I don't think GW sees it as important or else would they not have a rule somewhere? the land raider is not a new model and anyone who has even looked at one can clearly see that the weapons could potentially be mounted purely on one side or to the front and rear. At some point this must have come up and been asked if not with the land raider with a different model.
So, if it doesn't affect how you play, why do you want to have two one side?
As previously said, Redeemers get a pretty big buff from it, and I could see an advantage with it by driving it up flank forward allowing it to have a larger blocking face, and all guns could target one unit.
You are correct, cool IS subjective. But not when cool trumps gameplay mechanic. In every situation, GW have assembled their LRs with mirrored sponsons. Not only that, but having two on one side actually affects rules. That's the main problem.
Looks "cool" and doesn't affect gameplay? That's fine. Looks "cool" and affects gameplay? I'm sorry, but that's not quite right.
We can't say that GW doesn't care about it, citing a lack of ruling, because GW have always had problems with their rules. However, they have mentioned assembling it with Citadel miniatures, which implies following the instructions and using common sense when it comes to conversions.
Now if it is the case that this is a MFA model then what else could be MFA? Does a have inch tall base make a model MFA? What about a reposed model? We all know GW makes some models with bland poses so if it is slightly lower than normal is that model now MFA? Does fitting magnates offer an advantage? Clearly it does to, be able to switch out weapons is a clear money saving advantage and to be able to field many different types of a vehicle has a game play advantage on a local lvl. Doing such a thing is clearly not intended by following the instructions in the box.
How is fitting magnets an advantage? Assuming that the magnets never make the model any larger in any areas (ie, perfect fit), ow does it give an advantage in a game setting? Swapping out weaponry is done before or after the list-writing phase, so cannot affect the actual game. Therefore, not MFA as we describe it. Honestly, I have no idea how well fitted magnets could be classed as MFA in any sense.
We are clearly dancing on a gray line that everyone is calling black and white.
Correct. Why must we dance on this line? The models never show a vehicle with sponsons on two sides. What is the need to have them on two sides? I am genuinely curious for answers here.
Why do I want this? The OP asked this
oldzoggy wrote: Are you allowed to place sponsors of tanks on unusual places of the tank if it fits an you clearly don't have any advantage of it.
Such as placing them on the rear, on the bottom, on the the top or two at one side and all kinds of other silly ideas with inferior line of sight arcs.
And as a devil's advocate I thought well where is the Line and to my shock there is no line. No one here can point to a source that says It must be this way. So I really see no reason not to let them do it other than some arguments that don't even have any basis in the rules. If GW is not going to bother to write it down why would I bother to fill in the gaps they leave. They do not even clearly explain if you can mount them on the front or rear. If OP was so inclined he could mount the Right gun to the Front and the Left gun to the rear and while it would send some sun starved TOs or gamers into a panic it would be legal as it does not say the have to be mirrored.
Also to answer OP the best way to make a wacky set up is clearly to get a land raider and fill all 4 holes with gunes. I mean loading one side with both guns started a warp storm so imagine that times 2. Your land raider will clearly bring all the boys to the yard, they will be like "that's better than ours! MFA!" then you could teach them but you have to charge. Lol
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/02 20:20:53
The reason why I posted this is because most tournaments only clearly deny you the modelling for advantage. But that doesn't seem to restrict modelling for sillynes.such as 2 sponsons who face each other effectively having next to no line of sight. While I am under the impression that most players do not agree that this is allowed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And perhaps more relevant "for advantage" is vague. (Aside from the fact that they cant know why I model something.) When is it an advantage ? If it is clearly superior to the original build in all cases, or just in most cases or if it is really sucky except for one rare case where this might be a huge advantage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/02 21:17:26
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
EDIT: Also, modelling for advantage would be having an entire Wraithknight lying flat on the ground so you can hide behind a bush for a cover save. That just gets into silly territory. But if you wanna put him in a bent position, then it's more of a grey area (in that case I'd bulk up his height a bit with some rocks).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/03 02:33:38
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Here's a good guide: if your opponent asked you to play it as if it was the standard model (measuring from the normal gun location, etc) any time you might gain an advantage from your non-standard model would you agree to that, or would you insist on getting the benefits? If you're ok with playing it as the standard model then it probably isn't MFA. If you insist on having an advantage that the normal model wouldn't have then it's MFA.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Does that make it a FW model or a citadel model at that point?
It is a Citadel Base model for certain, but then you are adding parts from a different manufacturer(owned by the same company does not matter); and you are certainly not building the base model with the Citadel instructions(they have no instructions for the lascannons).
COINS FOR THE COIN GOD!!!
haha this is why I love friendly games and/or campaigns.
-Me: Don't tell the commissar but i left my Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer at home, but I do carry a folded Texas flag behind my front plate.
-Friend: Texas flag gives you AV14 all around.
Jury-Rig - makeshift repairs or temporary contrivances, made with only the tools and materials that happen to be on hand, the Machine Spirit is not pleased......
2500pts (Imperial Navy Armsmen)