Rules for Stronos Mk1 Razorback weapons

[storm bringer]

I am thinking about different weapon loadouts for my razorbacks and happened upon the Stonos pattern (TL Plasma Gun & Lascannon to replace the TL Heavy Bolter).

 

I have seen the old model and clearly it looks like one weapon mounting, so does that mean that you have to model it and play it like so? i.e.

A) It counts as firing one weapon (Co-axially mounted, so you can fire both weapons and move 6") but only needs 1 "weapon destroyed" to knock out both guns? Or

:D is it counted as 2 weapons and so you need to sit still to fire both but the opponent needs two "weapon destroyed" to nail both guns?

 

The vague "rules" (well, the options entry for the razorback)in CSM and CSW might imply :tu: as being correct but the old (1993) model might imply A) to be correct? What does everybody think is most appropriate? (Before I start incorrectly modelling the thing!)

[Marshal Wilhelm]

It is actually 2 guns

 

It takes 2 weapon destroyed result to get rid of

 

Move 0" and fire both

up to 6" one or other

up to 12" none

[storm bringer]

It is actually 2 guns

 

It takes 2 weapon destroyed result to get rid of

 

Move 0" and fire both

up to 6" one or other

up to 12" none

 

Thanks, very helpful.

 

Was wondering about modelling with a predator turret for the single lascannon and a pintel mounted TL Plasma gun- sound good? or are there any better conversions?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Thanks, very helpful.

 

Was wondering about modelling with a predator turret for the single lascannon and a pintel mounted TL Plasma gun- sound good? or are there any better conversions?

 

I am planning to use the Razors HB turret [i won't be using the Heavy Bolters anyway]

 

cut the ends off

stick Las cannon in between

plasma gun either side

 

Your idea will also work and make it easier to show the weapons being destroyed [we pull ours out, if we haven't glued things in place ;) ]

[ShinyRhino]

The two-weapon answer is supported by the Space Marine FAQ, btw.

[Grey Mage]

And by there being no mention of Co-axial guns, or rules for them, outside of apocalypse :).

 

It would have been a perfectly viable way to craft it, but its not how they went- 2 guns, so shooting everything at speed doesnt happen, but it takes 2 weapon destroyed results to disarm it.

 

Oh, and I just cut off the barrel of one lascannon and replace it with the front ends of a couple plasma pistols- doesnt look half bad if I do say so myself.

[Xeonic]

I have seen it done with single las turret and a cupola mounted TL plasma gun(ala storm bolter), which looked pretty sharp. This is also probably the most rules advantageous as it puts the plasma guns a couple inches closer to get range as well. It also allowed the TL plasma gun and lascannon to be removed separately for weapon destroyed.

The classic model of course has a lascannon flanked by two plasma guns, one on either side, which also looks nice.

I have also seen it done as mentioned above with a TL las turret with one las barrel removed and replaced by two plasmaguns.

[BearersOfSalvation]

Your option A is saying "make up a two new rule for a new type of weapons, called 'co-axial', then change the army list entry for razorbacks to say that the weapons are co-axial", so since you're on the 'official rules' forum and not 'homegrown rules' it's obviously not what you're supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with using house rules amongst people who agree to them, but 'invent a house rule' is never the official rules answer. If an old model doesn't match the current rules, the official rules (and tournament) answer is to use it as a 'counts as' the modern item, but I don't think there's any mismatch between the model and the current rules - the model has both guns on it, after all.

 

I also don't see anything that's at all confusing or 'vague' in the rules for a razorback, the army entry says that you can but an option with 2 weapons, and the game rules clearly cover how to handle vehicles with multiple weapons.

[Grey Mage]

Well remember- not everyones playing with the same codex. We have a good number of people on here who have English as their second, or third language, and sometimes GW doesnt translate as well as they should.

 

Also, newer players can easily get information overload and become confused- After all, the other options are all one weapon, and arranged thus, so why not this one?

 

Better for them to check in ahead of time then to find out theyre doing it wrong in the middle of a game.

[Koremu]

Was wondering about modelling with a predator turret for the single lascannon and a pintel mounted TL Plasma gun- sound good? or are there any better conversions?

 

Take 1 attack bike sidecar;

glue the base, seat & back together normally;

Glue the wheel arch over the right leg of the pilot (with a little trimming);

mount the rail inverted over the wheel arch and the mount point;

 

Then shave and join a pair of plasma guns

add a pair of gunner arms from a vehicle sprue

add to the upper torso and head as normal

 

Next (haven't done this yet);

I'm going to mount an IG Sentinel Lascannon using the (trimmed) wheel axle as a mount point, with added gubbins to cover the original mount point for it.

[BearersOfSalvation]

Well remember- not everyones playing with the same codex. We have a good number of people on here who have English as their second, or third language, and sometimes GW doesnt translate as well as they should.

 

I don't see how translation matters, the 'official rule' answer is never going to be 'make up a house rule for a new type of weapon, then make up a house rule changing the codex entry to use the new house rule'. It doesn't matter what language you speak, whatever 'official rules' translates into is going to be different than 'homegrown rules'.

 

Also, newer players can easily get information overload and become confused- After all, the other options are all one weapon, and arranged thus, so why not this one?

 

That doesn't indicate that the wording is vague, that indicates that the person is getting information overload and is overcomplicating things inside of their own head. If some entries say one weapon, some say a twin-linked weapon, and some say multiple weapons, the way to lessen your confusion is to see if what the entries say makes sense on it's own, which it does (the rules clearly handle a vehicle with two weapons just fine). Thinking that you need to come up with new rules on the fly is just going to get you deeper and deeper into information overload.

 

Better for them to check in ahead of time then to find out theyre doing it wrong in the middle of a game.

 

At what point did I sat that he should not have asked the question? My answering the question and explaining how to avoid similar confusion in the future is not a statement that he should not have asked in the first place.

[Grey Mage]

Well remember- not everyones playing with the same codex. We have a good number of people on here who have English as their second, or third language, and sometimes GW doesnt translate as well as they should.

 

I don't see how translation matters, the 'official rule' answer is never going to be 'make up a house rule for a new type of weapon, then make up a house rule changing the codex entry to use the new house rule'. It doesn't matter what language you speak, whatever 'official rules' translates into is going to be different than 'homegrown rules'.

Translation matters, because in one version or the other it might be listed differently. Im not familiar with german, or italian, for all I know the wording could have been incredibly vague, or perhaps 'the gun is a lascannon with two joined plasma guns' or some such. Poor translation has caused alot of problems over the centuries, and its always taking the time to clarify something.

 

Also, newer players can easily get information overload and become confused- After all, the other options are all one weapon, and arranged thus, so why not this one?

 

That doesn't indicate that the wording is vague, that indicates that the person is getting information overload and is overcomplicating things inside of their own head. If some entries say one weapon, some say a twin-linked weapon, and some say multiple weapons, the way to lessen your confusion is to see if what the entries say makes sense on it's own, which it does (the rules clearly handle a vehicle with two weapons just fine). Thinking that you need to come up with new rules on the fly is just going to get you deeper and deeper into information overload.

You were asking why it was confusing, this is one of the reasons. Wether or not its confusing for you has nothing to do with wether or not its confusing to them.

 

Better for them to check in ahead of time then to find out theyre doing it wrong in the middle of a game.

 

At what point did I sat that he should not have asked the question? My answering the question and explaining how to avoid similar confusion in the future is not a statement that he should not have asked in the first place.

 

Despite appearances, not everything I posted was for your benefit. Part of the B+C is making sure that newer players know that they are welcome. While you may not have been implying they shouldnt have asked, it is worth mentioning that all questions, even obviously looking ones, are fine here, and no one will be derided for asking them.

 

Especially as some of the debates around here can get rather heated at times. Id hate for an inexperienced player to feel intimidated in this subforum.

[Ian MacKay]

Your option A is saying "make up a two new rule for a new type of weapons, called 'co-axial', then change the army list entry for razorbacks to say that the weapons are co-axial", so since you're on the 'official rules' forum and not 'homegrown rules' it's obviously not what you're supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with using house rules amongst people who agree to them, but 'invent a house rule' is never the official rules answer. If an old model doesn't match the current rules, the official rules (and tournament) answer is to use it as a 'counts as' the modern item, but I don't think there's any mismatch between the model and the current rules - the model has both guns on it, after all.

 

I also don't see anything that's at all confusing or 'vague' in the rules for a razorback, the army entry says that you can but an option with 2 weapons, and the game rules clearly cover how to handle vehicles with multiple weapons.

 

Grey Mage summed up the points pretty well... But I have to add my two cents to this. If the listing was clear when the codex was written, the information wouldn't have been in the FAQ released last year: Space Marine FAQ