Friday Night Internet Fight, This One Goes to Round 11

There was a thread on Dakka that I really wanted to use this week, as it relates to my academic life, but it wasn't fighty enough. Don't worry, though, that thread will show it's face here this weekend or early next week.
Not sure exactly when yet, since Dr. Girlfriend isn't on call this weekend, I will probably be spending time doing yard work with her and Evan is coming over Sunday for a 40k throw down. Needless to say, when I get around to it it'll be fucking epic.

In case you were getting antsy about whether or not there would be a fight this week, have no fear; there will be. Coming up with nothing interesting at a number of the usual sites (should have saved the racist shit for this, but oh well, I've picked on BoLS quite a lot lately), I hopped over to Warseer for my monthly dose of pain. I don't know what's worse, having to read the stupidity over there or the effect of their layout on my eyes. Seriously- electric blue text on a black background, who thought that was a great idea. I can still feel my retinas screaming in agony at me right now.

This week's fight can be found here in the "tank sponson conversions" thread. IGoblinego asks us whether it's ok to model sponsons on your vehicle conversions to have different firing arcs than "normally" used on a model. Is it ok to model for advantage? You guys make the call: Dick Move? Legal? Who is going to win this one? Not wanting to break from tradition, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement. The following thread may be edited to run in the time allotted and has been formatted to fit your screen. Lastly, for FUCK'S sake don't forget to vote on the winner of this week's fight in the poll, located near the upper right hand side of the main page. Let's get it on....

IGoblinego- GW's Leman Russ sponsons can fire only forward and side, but not back.


If I make sponsons that are capable of shooting back, is it illegal? ~dick move defined...

chaos0xomega- dont see why it would be. It says that the firing arc of a sponson is determined by the models range of movement, right? Well if the model you're using has a greater range of movement, then it fits by the rules. ~good luck not getting punched in the dick by your opponent when you try and explain your position

IGoblinego- Cool, does this also work on main gun of tank? ~now you're just getting fucking greedy.

chaos0xomega- No clue. If you're talking about taking something like a vindicator and putting the demolisher cannon in a turret, that is illegal (as the weapon is described as being hull-mounted). Not only that, but something like that is in poor taste and deserves a kick in the balls. ~so fucking with sponsons is ok, but changing the location of a gun is not. way draw an arbitrary line, man.

Spyder68- Having a custom tank is ok.


When you made the custom tank for a advantage.. which it seems your wanting to do.. then you're ~thank god I'm not an editor. I think I might shoot myself if I were modelling for advantage and you will get complaints.

MetalGecko23- I have noticed that for a lot of vehicles they have stopped listing where the guns are actaully located. ~reallly? I hadn't noticed that mysellf, but you may be on to something here.


Take for instances the land raider which just says it has 2 twin-linked lascannons. It says nothing about them being sponsons so technically its perfectly legal to mount them anywhere and any way you like. ~I mount mine on the bottom, oriented with a 180 degree arc straight at the ground. I fear the mawloc :) Its just that on the actual model they are sponson, but nothing says they couldn't be turrets or hull mounted. ~nothing says that they aren't mounted on robot drones with a BS of 6 WS of 10 and 18 dreadnought close combat weapons that can detach from the vehicle and count as fast skimmers with a transport capacity of 400 either

You could argue about modeling for advantage but you wouldn't have any ground to stand on because the rules say nothing about where said guns are located.

As for sponsons on a russ, the rules say that sponsons can cover up to the full 180 degrees so if you model them so that they do it ok by the rules.

As note that it doesn't say where the russ's heavy bolter/lascannon is located. Which means you could make it co-axial if you wished. ~as note that that is a total dick move

chaos0xomega- I disagree. coaxial weapons are specified as being coaxial (as they confer extra special rules) ~apocalypse rules =/= Warhammer 40k rules. You cant go around modeling coaxial weapons and then saying they are in fact coax ~where exactly is that rule written?

MetalGecko23- Co-axial weapons only have rules in Apocalypse. An as Apocalypse is the anything goes rule set it doesn't matter if your Russ has a co-axial weapon or a hull mounted.


So you actually can go around modeling co-axial weapons and say that they are co-axial weapons. They only rule set where it matters happens to be the one rule set were the actual rules for anything are all but ignored and your opponents opinion has a minimal impact. ~except it still matters in every rules set as you have just vastly improved your firing arc. In your russ example, moving the lascannon/heavy bolter/heavy flamer from the hull to the turret would give you 8x more arc than the stock model. dipshit!

Tethylis- It may not mention in the codex whether a weapon is sponson/hull mounted but the assembly instructions for the tank will clearly show where they are ment to be mounted. ~so directions are greater than rules? Putting sponson/hull mounted weapons in a co-axial mount is clearly modeling for advantange IMHO

DJ3- This really isn't a fair argument. The Codex doesn't have to tell you where the guns go, because the GW models are the legal placements of the weapons. The models GW provides effectively lay out the rules of the game in exactly the same way the rulebook itself does. ~So could you kindly tell me EXACTLY where the weapons are located on a Stormraven? Oh you can't....what's that you say, they don't have a model yet. Oh, shit, so much for your argument. What about the old school 90 degree predator sponsons? Don't the new ones have 180 degree plus arcs?


If someone puts a Terminator on a three-foot base, you'd tell them they're modelling for advantage, even though the Space Marine Codex doesn't say a Terminator must be on a 40mm base. ~Hey a 3 foot base would probably be more like modeling for disadvantage than anything. Who exactly would that help?

The contents of a GW model kit are effectively admissable as rules as far as modelling for an advantage--I'm not sure why you'd think vehicles are somehow exempt from this. We wouldn't even know what "modelling for an advantage" was if we didn't have the GW kits to compare to, and suggesting that you're allowed to do whatever you want with a model as long as the Codex doesn't tell you otherwise is full-on ridiculous.

If you custom-make a tank that has a greater weapons arc than the GW kit it is based on, then yes, you're modelling for an advantage--and this will be met with varying amounts of resistance based on who you're playing and the context of the game. ~resistance is futile

MetalGecko23- These a declarations against conversions. ~and this am my declarations against good grammars Gw fully supports players and their conversions. ~I hear they even lift and separate Which means once I buy the GW model I can do with it as I will. Including vastly changing the makeup of the model. ~a little rouge here, some lip liner there, maybe some shade around the eyes....

As far as I know there are no rules for modeling for advantage. ~that's because the first rule about modeling for advantage is don't talk about modeling for advantage Which isn't to say that I have EVER attempted it. Its just the modeling for advantage line of thinking is a slippery slope. Its anti-hobby and totally opinion based, which is why I don't like it.

Spacker- Where I play we use the Apocalypse rules, which means we follow them - while 0-1 restrictions are lifted and the FOC is no longer used, the rest of the rules still stand. If there were no rules, you might as well just dice off to see who wins and walk away. ~come on boxcars, dethy needs a new pair of shoes (no seriously, if anyone knows where I can get black soled black converse hi-tops, let me know- mine are fucked and I can't find a new pair other than on their expensive ass website) If someone modifies a vehicle to make a weapon coax then we expect there to be a points adjustment to reflect this, expecting to get an extra advantage for zero points impact is the sort of thing that gets you kicked out of our gaming club. ~well I'm glad that you have the years of game design experience necessary to determine the fair cost of vehicle upgrades.


I don't know why people drag out the tired old "it's Apoc, do what you want" response, I can only assume those people don't actually play Apoc much, if at all. As to the comment "your opponents opinion has a minimal impact", I can only assume that your Apoc games are all about who can get the most advantage against their opponent rather than actually playing a fun game. Sheesh. ~please please tell me how I should be having fun. I damn near forgot that being competitive makes for boring games all the time. I have to figure out some way to make wanting to win ok....Participation trophies for everyone!

MetalGecko23- Clearly you have never actually played Apoc for fun. Otherwise you would know its not about winning, its only about fun. ~see above comments And the more wierd and quirky things you bring to the board the more fun your bound to have. Play with guys who like fun more then winning and Apoc will be a much more interesting game. Besides it really is the do anything rule set. ~I like to play with no pants on. Imagine the fun you could have with apocalypse if you were playing in international waters.

Spacker- I've only ever played Apoc for fun. But fun is something that should apply to both sides - having a player turn up with models converted purely for gaming advantage and not compensating for it by adjusting points or rules to balance is what takes the fun away, because then the focus becomes that player being a jerk. I'm all for fun - but it has to be fun for everyone, which is what the 40k and Apoc rules state very clearly.


I'm all for Orks riding Carnifexes too - but that means coming up with rules to match that unit, and an appropriate cost for it. Taking a Carnifex unit from the codex, and adding Ork shoota and choppa rules to it without adding any cost, is just making a mockery of the entire gaming experience if it's one sided. ~make hyperbolic statements much? back here in reality land, population me, there seems to be an argument going on about whether making minor, advantageous tweaks is ok If it's something all the players agree to, then fine - but without some sort of penalty for this kind of change, things can quickly get out of hand and it's no longer a fun game for anyone.

If you read the Apoc rules, or the GW site articles about creating models, they make it clear that when making a custom unit (and moving a weapon from sponson to coax, for example, means you are not using the standard codex unit, so you must be creating a custom one) you should adjust the points appropriately, and agree the changes with your opponent beforehand. If you just allow anything without any consideration to what is actually written in the Apoc rules, then you're not playing Apoc - you're just playing a game with your own house rules, which is not the same thing. ~Geckohammer 2021

MetalGecko23- This is the assumption that the leman russ has to have its heavy bolters as sponsons. Remember the BRB was written when we were still using the 3rd/4th edition guard codex where leman russ specifically paid for sponsons. They however do not anymore. ~what the frak? So it isn't going to be modeling for advantage if I say use the space marine predator sponsons or model both heavy bolters to the hull of the tank. Any attempt to say that it is modeling for an advantage is some one who is just using their opinion. ~and we all know that opinions should all be ignored.

Linoosthelost- Ohh, Ohh pretty please can you send me a copy of your IG codex, in my codex I have to pay for the sponsons, yours sounds so much nicer ~mmmm sweet delicious sarcasm

Dwane Diblie- I have a friend who has swaped all turret weapons on his LRBTs with the hull lascannon. ~what is swaping? They look very cool and play fine as he has to pivot the tanks to fire them.


Fluff wise ~oh fuck, it's the F word. run for the hills there are so many variants of battle tanks that it is hard to keep record. I would say it is okay to modle your tank how you want, but be willing to be limited if your opponent dissagrees. ~I'll modle what I want to modle how I want, when I want and there's nothing you can do about my expert modleing

I hav also see a Land Raider with both sponsons on the one side. ~beware of cross winds, this sounds like it's in danger of tipping They are still sponsons and they easely fit there as if they where supose to. But the owner always gets to fire both of them all the time at whatever he wants. I never heard any complaints about it on the day, but a lot of people admiring it.

Axeman1n- The firing arc is defined for the LRuss sponsons, so you may model them as you like (mine have 180 degrees too) but they may only shoot in the forward 90 degrees. Sorry. They, like the fire points and access points on vehicles, have been defined in the codex/BRB. ~except that you're wrong, and they haven't been defined like that anywhere, butthole

MetalGecko23- Neither book has anything on whether or not a leman russ can change the sponson firing arc. The example is of a leman russ, yes, but it is also just an example of type 2 sponson firing arc. As the leman russ isn't specifically armed with sponsons, read the codex, then one doesn't need to model the guns that you pay points for as sponson with 90 or 180 degree firing arcs. It can be mounted any way that you choose so long as you reprensent the gun on the model.


Yes I know the official model has sponsons, big deal. ~unless you don't put them on. why hasn't anybody brought up the fact that putting sponsons on your russ is a pretty bad idea most of the time? That doesn't stop some one from converting it otherwise. Its isn't modeling for advantage its isn't unfair and it doesn't give the leman russ any more edge then it normally does. ~how does vastly improving LOS based fire arcs not give more edge THAN normal?

Which is why I don't like the modeling for advantage arguement. It just sounds like whining from people who have no desire to convert and therefore neither should anyone else. ~wait, what? kind of a Glen Beckian leap of logic there, pal

Do any of you consider True Scale space marines to be modeling for advantage? If I used the old space marine predator which sponson rules would I use the type 1 or type 2? I should use type 1 by all the logic that I have been given because of the predators example even though they are type 2 sponsons. If I use marneus calgar as a iron hand and convert acordingly is that modeling for advantage? If I turn space marine bikes into quads and change the base acordingly is that modeling for advantage? ~clearly taking up more space and providing a bigger target is an advantage for somebody ;)

When you convert models what is to stop anyone from claiming the modeling for advantage arguement?

DJ3- "Originally Posted by MetalGecko23

That is not modeling for advantage. It isn't breaking ANY rules so your opinion on the matter doesn't count. You just don't like they way the person did their conversion."

So wait, your model has an advantage over my model because you blatantly altered its layout...


And that somehow isn't modelling to an advantage to you?

Not only is that ridiculous, your stance there eliminates all "modelling for an advantage" arguments. Oh, you don't like my Broadside mounted on a two-foot flying base? Your opinion doesn't count! You just don't like my conversion!

Converting, as a part of the hobby, is all fine and well. You can do whatever you want with your model. But as far as the mechanics of the game, you have to abide by the restrictions the model would usually have. Suggesting that you can just stick weapons wherever you want for an advantage and have it not be modelling for an advantage is borderline insane. ~your insight is like a ray of light. Like a prayer, you have answered my many questions. My opinion on this isn't frozen any more. Now my opinion is burning up. I'll stop being such a material girl now.

MetalGecko23- This doesn't compute. How can you have such things as conversions if we are supposed to follow defined models? I return to are true scale space marines modeling for advantage? Is puting predator sponsons on a leman russ modeling for advantage? Does an old style predator have to use type 1 sponsons because of the example or type 2 because thats what they are?

Why is modeling for advantage illegal? ~well only in most states... An when do we draw the line between conversion and attempt to take an advantage. What if I want my defiler to stand upright, simply because I want it to, would you accuse me of modeling for advantage? I think the game has become far to competitive when converting your model beyond the orginal specs is considered unfair.

DJ3- Er, it's quite simple, as many people have pointed out. You can model your tank any way you want, but if you have any respect for your opponents, you will play it the way it was intended. ~why not just discuss it beforehand? heaven forbid we could compromise on anything As someone very clearly answerred the original question--if you want to model your Sponsons so that they can turn 180 degrees (because you think it looks cooler) that's absolutely fine. But when you're playing a game, treat them as if they only move 90 degrees, like the normal ones.


You're effectively suggesting that everyone has to be a jerk and take any advantage their converted model allows. ~well he pretty much has the rules on his side, sorry to say We're fully capable of saying "yeah, I know I modelled it this way, but normally it would only be this, so in the spirit of fairness I'll play it the intended way"

MetalGecko23- Still you have to answer which type of sponson does the old style predator use? And the rules do not say that leman russ sponsons only fire 90 degrees. Its only using the leman russ sponson as an example of a type 2 sponson. Also note that the sponson examples are GUIDELINES not RULES (excuse the emphasis). ~you're excused Note what it says about sponsons. About how they can vary greatly, some can LOS more then 180 degrees. Oh, and that LOS is determined by the shape and position of the sponson's mounting. Though it does say see examples. Which when I read the Rule book and take note of what they give I get the impression that sponsons can be anyway you wish but are limited by their own shape, not the supposed shape others want to be in. ~I wish I were in better shape :(


I would assume that people would respect me because I'm nice to them. I wouldn't think it has anything to do with what my plastic tank looks like and how it plays slightly different from the basic designed one. ~well as you can imagine, the back and forth continues. There is still some animosity and good digs to be had, but this gives a fair representation of what things look like in this week's fight, hopefully without giving you a wall of text.