Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm in the middle of converting up a wheeled Razorback for my Deathwatch. It looks pretty good with the assault cannon turret, but as I was digging through my bits box I noticed I have a spare Predator turret with lascannons. Admittedly this makes the conversion look a lot like a Stryker IFV, and is completely fitting. I'd use it as a Predator, but Deathwatch don't have Predators. :(

How much griping do you think would ensue if I occasionally swap out a Razorback turret for the twin-lascannon Predator turret and still say it's a Razorback?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm in the middle of converting up a wheeled Razorback for my Deathwatch. It looks pretty good with the assault cannon turret, but as I was digging through my bits box I noticed I have a spare Predator turret with lascannons. Admittedly this makes the conversion look a lot like a Stryker IFV, and is completely fitting. I'd use it as a Predator, but Deathwatch don't have Predators. :(

How much griping do you think would ensue if I occasionally swap out a Razorback turret for the twin-lascannon Predator turret and still say it's a Razorback?

This isn't really a rules question, which this forum is for. There are no rules that cover this basically.

I don't see it being a problem in any pick up game though. For organised play, it would depend on the policy on conversions.

I'm actually thinking of doing this for my Razorbacks because it looks cool. Nobody should have a problem with it as long as you dont also have Predators that look the same in your army.

RAW you shouldn't have an issue as it's the same weapon loadout. I'd just make sure beforehand that it's a Razorback you're fielding and not a sponson-less Predator.

 Valkyrie wrote:
RAW you shouldn't have an issue as it's the same weapon loadout. I'd just make sure beforehand that it's a Razorback you're fielding and not a sponson-less Predator.

RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
RAW you shouldn't have an issue as it's the same weapon loadout. I'd just make sure beforehand that it's a Razorback you're fielding and not a sponson-less Predator.

RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

RAW are silent on models over all.

that said I'd advise agaisnt it simply because a razorback with a predator turret is well.. a predator. too much chance for confusion

Definitely would be questionable. A Predator does not have to take sponsons, so you'd be running a Predator simply as a Razorback. Among friends probably fine, but anywhere else that's on the "misleading" side of things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
RAW you shouldn't have an issue as it's the same weapon loadout. I'd just make sure beforehand that it's a Razorback you're fielding and not a sponson-less Predator.

RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

Haven't you said there's no rule saying you can't use grots with knights rules?

I've done it before, though with just the basic rhino hull.

Looks cool, and most people don't have problems with it.

 kastelen wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
RAW you shouldn't have an issue as it's the same weapon loadout. I'd just make sure beforehand that it's a Razorback you're fielding and not a sponson-less Predator.

RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

Haven't you said there's no rule saying you can't use grots with knights rules?

Yes, but I was corrected and thus changed my mind when evidence to the contrary of what I previously had thought came to light. Shocking, I know.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

Be (more) useful & provide an actual reference/ link to this rule.

Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

 flandarz wrote:
Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

I wish people would make up their mind. I say any model can be used to represent any datasheet, people get upset. I say you can only use the correct model with the correct datasheet, people get upset.

ccs wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW it is an issues because you are not permitted to do so.

Be (more) useful & provide an actual reference/ link to this rule.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769402.page#10297848

well anytime there's two positions BCB someone's going to take the other one and argue with you so.. yeah. That said IMHO there's what's called the "reasonable person test" is using a grot to represent a titan reasonable, no they're massivly differant sized models. However if, instead of a standard razorback, I take a rhino and put lascanon sponsons on it's sides, yeah that's fine, a reasonable person can figure it out, (and honestly it'd be kind of a fun idea for a Razorback pattern) However using a predator turrent is too easy to confuse so is proably a bad idea (but obviously if it's Kosher with your opponent it's Kosher. likewise if your opponent is fine with your using a grot for a warlord titan go for it) IMHO you get a lot more out of gaming if you remember rule Zero (Have fun, don't be an ass) but are somewhat laid back, then if you approuch gaming like a legal contract. Just my opinion obviously. and I know some people clearly differ, and I hope I never have to play those people TBH. I'm looking to have fun, throw some dice and make pew pew noises with the other guy, not skim rule books to see if I can screw the other guy due to a punctuation error in paragraph twelve subsection C

I think there is one thing going for me. Deathwatch doesn't have Predators. It would be hard for someone to then confuse it for anything other than a razorback.

99% of my gaming is casual. If I were to use this turret option in any game I'd clearly point it out well before deployment.

wait, so the fact that other than the turret how is a twinlas pred no sponson different than a razorback with twinlas?

I would see no problem with it as long as you say "this thing here is rhino chassis with twinlas(ie Razorback)". But thankfully I dont play in an A-Hole meta.

Also, would the orientation of the rear turret plate change anything for those that have an issue? If the turret is visibly further rearward than on a pred is that ok?

Racerguy180 wrote:
wait, so the fact that other than the turret how is a twinlas pred no sponson different than a razorback with twinlas?

I would see no problem with it as long as you say "this thing here is rhino chassis with twinlas(ie Razorback)". But thankfully I dont play in an A-Hole meta.

Also, would the orientation of the rear turret plate change anything for those that have an issue? If the turret is visibly further rearward than on a pred is that ok?

Both a no-Sponson Pred and a Razorback can field twin las. The Razorback has transport capabilities. One could theoretically field a Two Sponson Predator (with HB or LC sponsons firing as Twin Linked) with a rhino top instead of a turret (In this edition that doesn't have facings/etc) and also still be a Razorback without really modeling for advantage.

The orientation of the Rear Turret plate is also a cosmetic option - especially since we don't measure from the gun anymore(I think). Nothing says you have to put the hole forwards for this, and backwards for that. It's really just a matter of where you want the end of the gun in relation to the front of the tank for rule of cool.

As long as you have a uniform look for your Razorbacks - i.e. all using the two sponson option, or all using the Predator Turret(tough to do for TLHB), or all using the normal Razorback top mount - it wouldn't bother me. I'd get a little annoyed if you had one of all three.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

Breton wrote:

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

There is no official GW model of a razorback with twin LC, because there are no LC in the razorback box. Are you saying i cant play a razorback with twin LC, because there is no official model, even if the rules allow it ?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

I wish people would make up their mind. I say any model can be used to represent any datasheet, people get upset. I say you can only use the correct model with the correct datasheet, people get upset.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

To clarify, there certainly is a time and a place for absolute statements. But this is the reason both your stances upset people.

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

There is no official GW model of a razorback with twin LC, because there are no LC in the razorback box. Are you saying i cant play a razorback with twin LC, because there is no official model, even if the rules allow it ?

There is an official model... Lascannons do come in the box.

Ok, i stand corrected.

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

There is no official GW model of a razorback with twin LC, because there are no LC in the razorback box. Are you saying i cant play a razorback with twin LC, because there is no official model, even if the rules allow it ?

Um.. yes there are. There are no AC or Las-Plas in the box though. Is that what you meant?

And No, I'm saying there isn't an official model, so the line about using these rules with your official GW models doesn't RAW apply if you're not using Official GW models. It's my usual reply to people who want to go absolutely pedantically literal RAW. There's almost always something you can find going your way or even-worse-not-their-way if that's the "game" people want to play.

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Breton wrote:

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

There is no official GW model of a razorback with twin LC, because there are no LC in the razorback box. Are you saying i cant play a razorback with twin LC, because there is no official model, even if the rules allow it ?

Um.. yes there are. There are no AC in the box though. Is that what you meant?

But those are available from Forgeworld.

 Stux wrote:

But those are available from Forgeworld.

Which is official as well, FW = GW.

Breton wrote:

As long as you have a uniform look for your Razorbacks - i.e. all using the two sponson option, or all using the Predator Turret(tough to do for TLHB), or all using the normal Razorback top mount - it wouldn't bother me. I'd get a little annoyed if you had one of all three.

So you'd be really annoyed if you played me & my Razorbacks were of multiple vintages? All GW/FW, just produced over the course of 26 years....

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

You do know that the Predator & Razorback start with the same chassis don't you? Always have.
So "kit-bashing" that Pred turret onto a Razorback chassis results in.... a Predator sans sponsons. Wich is 100% an official GW model. And is not an example of kit-bashing.
The reason Preds have an enclosed turret & Razors have either an open topped turret (the ones I bought back in 2e) or a automated gun mount is so that you can visually tell them apart.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

But those are available from Forgeworld.

Which is official as well, FW = GW.

Agreed.

ccs wrote:

Breton wrote:

As long as you have a uniform look for your Razorbacks - i.e. all using the two sponson option, or all using the Predator Turret(tough to do for TLHB), or all using the normal Razorback top mount - it wouldn't bother me. I'd get a little annoyed if you had one of all three.

So you'd be really annoyed if you played me & my Razorbacks were of multiple vintages? All GW/FW, just produced over the course of 26 years.... ]/quote]

Nah, Even over the multiple vintages they'll look alike except for the very first Las/Plas - plus, If I'm only mildly annoyed by someone using a two sponson TLLC 'back, a genuine kit TLLC, and a Predator TLLC turret kit bash, why would I be "really annoyed" at your "legit" 'backs that I'd have to look at under a microscope at the headlight trim and tail light position to tell if it's a 2001 model year or a 2002 model year? Beyond that, I'm both honest enough to know it would be a little immersion breaking to see 3 different kit-bashes for one model in a SM army vs an Ork army and old enough to not care as much as you seem to want me to.

ccs wrote:

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Apparently there's a sentence at the beginning of the Core Rulebook that states: "use these rules when playing with your Official GW models" or something like that. That's the rule he'll point to when he says it's against RAW.

Kit bashing a Predator turret onto a Razorback chassis isn't technically an official GW model.

You do know that the Predator & Razorback start with the same chassis don't you? Always have.
So "kit-bashing" that Pred turret onto a Razorback chassis results in.... a Predator sans sponsons. Wich is 100% an official GW model. And is not an example of kit-bashing.
The reason Preds have an enclosed turret & Razors have either an open topped turret (the ones I bought back in 2e) or a automated gun mount is so that you can visually tell them apart.

I know if you take the chassis from the Razorback kit, and the Turret from the Predator kit, you kit bashed. I know there is no Death Watch Predator, so you kit bashed.

Being able to tell them apart is only one reason they MAY have that different top look. Selling you another Sprue is another. Which brings me to -

But those are available from Forgeworld.

It's also available from the LRC upgrade sprue on the GW website. You can take the TLAC insert from the LRC upgrade sprue, and you kit bashed. According to the pedantically literal RAW I'm making a point about in the first place, you could take the Heavy Bolter insert from a Land Raider Crusader box, - because you have the LRC Upgrade sprue - and put it on a Rhino chassis with the Tank top plate to make it a Razorback and technically you kit bashed. Again, as my point was about the literal pedantic reading of RAW - that insert is from the Land Raider Crusader kit/upgrade, while the chassis is from a Rhino/Razorback kit, and there is no official model with a Rhino Chassis and Land Raider weapons. I can put a Missile Launcher from my Dev Squad box on a Tactical Marine. If I put Assault Marine running legs under a tactical marine torso and give it a normal backpack and a bolter, then call it a tactical marine, I still kit-bashed. I have several devastators painted up without the "castle" legs - did I kit bash, or are they official GW models? Some of both. Finally, and let me say this again - as my point was about the pedantically literal reading of the rules - it is exceptionally easy to draw your own pedantically literal line in the sand sure to make someone else froth at it being applied to them too. If only somone would have replied to this idea taking exception to the illustration of my point about pedantically literal reading of rules like kit bashing and the "official model" as an example. Maybe next time.

Sorry OP, you've stumbled into the "well, technically..." section of the forum while looking for an answer to a fairly simple question. In general I can't imagine anyone having a problem with your conversion, especially because DW don't get Predators so there's not as much chance for confusion. It's usually best to check with a TO if you're planning to play at a tournament with it but for 99% of people in 99% of games it's almost certainly fine.

Deathwatch can get twin-Lascannon Predators using the Deimos Pattern Relic Predator entry in Imperial Armour: Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes.

Slipspace wrote:
Sorry OP, you've stumbled into the "well, technically..." section of the forum while looking for an answer to a fairly simple question. In general I can't imagine anyone having a problem with your conversion, especially because DW don't get Predators so there's not as much chance for confusion. It's usually best to check with a TO if you're planning to play at a tournament with it but for 99% of people in 99% of games it's almost certainly fine.

Sadly it's easy to imagine, some on here have already said they'd have an issue big enough to object over, which is how we got into the "well, technically..." section of the thread. I can't imagine they'd have what most of us would consider a good reason to have an objection over though.

Deathwatch can get twin-Lascannon Predators using the Deimos Pattern Relic Predator entry in Imperial Armour: Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes.

Probably Depending on Index Imperium1/2 and their handling of <CHAPTER> and how/if they kept DeathWatch from getting a Predator in the first place (in Index Imperium), good catch.