Measuring range from a Land Raider's sponson weapons

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.

**Largeblastmarker**

bocatt wrote:
Just a general observation:

When a tank or other unit is modeled/constructed, from the original kit, in a way that benefits the player using it (most likely your opponent) then it is automatically "modeling for advantage", is against the rules and it must be run as the model "is normally constructed" or consequences such as removing the offending model from the army, banning the offending army lost and forcing the player to choose another or banning the offending player

Now if the same tank or other unit is modeled, constructed, from the same kit, for artistic purposes, in a way that is detrimental to the opposing player, well then, it sucks to suck, you should have "built the model the right way" and "thought about that before you built the model" because now "that's how it is" and you don't get to use the model the way it's "normally constructed" because you built it a different way.

Something seems fishy here

this times a hundred.

**insaniak**

bocatt wrote:
Something seems fishy here

That's because you're apparently assuming that two seemingly conflicting points of view are automatically held by the same people...

However, the thinking there is that when you model something in a way that gains you an advantage, you are gaining an advantage, and so in the spirit of fairness should counteract that advantage. If you handicap yourself instead, well, that's entirely on your own head, as it doesn't disadvantage your opponent.

Personally, I prefer to just play the model is it is on the table. Far less hassle that way. If there is 'creative' modelling going on that is going to result in something dodgy happening, the time to resolve that is before the game starts. Not allowing the dodgy model on the table is a far better solution that pretending it is something that it isn't.

**B0B MaRlEy**

Your opponent shouldn't have to cope with your mistakes, no matter your reasons ,whereas if you do something wrong, too bad for you.

**Deadshot**

Nothing's fishy at all. If he wants to try and cheat, which is what MFA is, he'll get called on it. If he wants to make his kit look a little better but happens to put himself at a disadvantage, that's his call. The point being no one should be at a disadvantage unless its voluntary. So build the kit as instructed or put yourself at a disadvantage, but don't try to make extra long barrels and claim extra range.

**DeathReaper**

Deadshot wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
davou wrote:
Just point the landraider ass-backwards if someone complains. Its av14 rear anyway, and the sponsons are 180. :p most you lose out on is a HB or assault cannon

This doesn't work with the Crusader or Redeemer variants as their sponsons only have a 90° arc of fire.

My redeemer sponsons, with flamestorm cannons, can go the same rotation as the Lascannon sponsons on my regular Land Raider, just over 180 Degrees...

Well personally I call that MFA, as you have either left off part of the housing or changed it to allow it to do that. If assembled as the instructions specify you should only have 90°

No, I assembled it with all of its parts with no modification, and it swings the full 180+

(Not that it matters on a Flamestorm cannon).

**Deadshot**

DeathReaper wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
davou wrote:
Just point the landraider ass-backwards if someone complains. Its av14 rear anyway, and the sponsons are 180. :p most you lose out on is a HB or assault cannon

This doesn't work with the Crusader or Redeemer variants as their sponsons only have a 90° arc of fire.

My redeemer sponsons, with flamestorm cannons, can go the same rotation as the Lascannon sponsons on my regular Land Raider, just over 180 Degrees...

Well personally I call that MFA, as you have either left off part of the housing or changed it to allow it to do that. If assembled as the instructions specify you should only have 90°

No, I assembled it with all of its parts with no modification, and it swings the full 180+

(Not that it matters on a Flamestorm cannon).

Would you be able to upload photos? If you have indeed built it correctly it shouldn't. I have one of each myself and was frustrated to know it only did 90°. In fact my Crusader is a little less as I assembled the panels on the wrong sides and it doesn't go the full 90.

**B0B MaRlEy**

Deadshot wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
davou wrote:
Just point the landraider ass-backwards if someone complains. Its av14 rear anyway, and the sponsons are 180. :p most you lose out on is a HB or assault cannon

This doesn't work with the Crusader or Redeemer variants as their sponsons only have a 90° arc of fire.

My redeemer sponsons, with flamestorm cannons, can go the same rotation as the Lascannon sponsons on my regular Land Raider, just over 180 Degrees...

Well personally I call that MFA, as you have either left off part of the housing or changed it to allow it to do that. If assembled as the instructions specify you should only have 90°

No, I assembled it with all of its parts with no modification, and it swings the full 180+

(Not that it matters on a Flamestorm cannon).

Would you be able to upload photos? If you have indeed built it correctly it shouldn't. I have one of each myself and was frustrated to know it only did 90°. In fact my Crusader is a little less as I assembled the panels on the wrong sides and it doesn't go the full 90.

Agreed, in the last thread I asked the person who said the same thing and they found out they misremembered instead of posting the pic.

**DeathReaper**

Sure, when I get a pic, I will load it.

**Bishop F Gantry**

Sir Arun wrote:
Would you be cool with a person who modeled his Land Raider to have its sponsons behind the side access doors measuring range as if the sponsons were swapped with the side access door so that they get more range?

Or would you only allow this for players who have glued their Land Raider that specific way?

Personally I would have no problem with this as people might glue the sponsons at the back for artistic/cosmetic reasons rather than at the front, but then being put at a disadvantage in the game is kinda unfair.

Well if someone is gluing their 60+ bucks model thats at a disadvantage to them, why should I give them 2+ inches extra range? theres pros and cons to both placements.

**FlingitNow**

Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

**B0B MaRlEy**

For the redeemer and the crusader there are pictures from GW with the guns in the front slot, and for the crusader with both cases. The few redeemers I've found with the flamers at the back weren't "official" by any mean

**FlingitNow**

Look at the actual instructions on how to build the model they specify the guns at the rear.

**Deadshot**

FlingitNow wrote:
Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

I wasn't saying THAT was MFA, what I was saying was that someone claimed to be able to rotate their LRC or LRR sponsons 180°, but normally they can't be.

Placing them at the front is perfectly fine, I've done it myself in both cases.

**NightCrusader**

Deadshot wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

I wasn't saying THAT was MFA, what I was saying was that someone claimed to be able to rotate their LRC or LRR sponsons 180°, but normally they can't be.

Placing them at the front is perfectly fine, I've done it myself in both cases.

The older version of the LRC with metal parts turns over 180°.

Fluff vise and for looks I always glue TLL to the back and LRR/LRC guns to the front but it is acceptable to place them as you wish.

I would't allow them to be measured from different spot where they actually are assembled.

**FlingitNow**

Deadshot wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

I wasn't saying THAT was MFA, what I was saying was that someone claimed to be able to rotate their LRC or LRR sponsons 180°, but normally they can't be.

Placing them at the front is perfectly fine, I've done it myself in both cases.

I think you misunberstood me. I was talking about everyone claiming that gluing the guns on the rear was different to the instructions. Which is not the case.

I didn't say you said that gluing the guns to the front was MFA but there is an argument for it. It changes the game properties in an advantageous way and is building the model differently from the instructions...

**Kommissar Kel**

NightCrusader wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

I wasn't saying THAT was MFA, what I was saying was that someone claimed to be able to rotate their LRC or LRR sponsons 180°, but normally they can't be.

Placing them at the front is perfectly fine, I've done it myself in both cases.

The older version of the LRC with metal parts turns over 180°.

Fluff vise and for looks I always glue TLL to the back and LRR/LRC guns to the front but it is acceptable to place them as you wish.

I would't allow them to be measured from different spot where they actually are assembled.

No, it doesn't the shield runs flush with the little Triangle bits.

But that has already been shown in the old thread

**NightCrusader**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
NightCrusader wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why is everyone stating that gluing the guns at the back is different from the instructions? They tell you to glue them at the back. There's an argument that gluing them at the front is MFA but GW posts lots of pictures of their models built like that which adds validity to that method of building.

Personally I've always built mine with the guns at the front as it seems dumb to have an exit right in front of your guns and that's a good way to get all your men killed by your own guns. Which most militaries see as bad tactics (but granted the US military has seen as their tactical bedrock since the 2nd American civil war).

I wasn't saying THAT was MFA, what I was saying was that someone claimed to be able to rotate their LRC or LRR sponsons 180°, but normally they can't be.

Placing them at the front is perfectly fine, I've done it myself in both cases.

The older version of the LRC with metal parts turns over 180°.

Fluff vise and for looks I always glue TLL to the back and LRR/LRC guns to the front but it is acceptable to place them as you wish.

I would't allow them to be measured from different spot where they actually are assembled.

No, it doesn't the shield runs flush with the little Triangle bits.

But that has already been shown in the old thread

Yes. You are right. I needed to check it if I have my sponsons assembled wrong but they aren't and don't turn over 90.
Just remembered wrong. My apologies.

**Super Ready**

Something that hasn't really come up so far. The Land Raider is an assault vehicle - taking the disadvantage of having the guns at the back means having the advantage of using the front hatches to get a bit nearer for an assault.

This might not seem all that great with the front ramp anyway, but two things should be borne in mind. One, extra-large units in a Crusader or Redeemer (Death Company, Crusader squads, Blood Claws) need all the extra room they can get. Two, using a side hatch means you tend to get a much better template line-up for the Redeemer in particular.

I would say - play it either way, regardless of how you've modelled it, but once you've picked which hatch is which I expect you to stick to it.

**insaniak**

Super Ready wrote:
One, extra-large units in a Crusader or Redeemer (Death Company, Crusader squads, Blood Claws) need all the extra room they can get.

In the current edition, where models disembark one at a time, this really isn't the case.

Two, using a side hatch means you tend to get a much better template line-up for the Redeemer in particular.

I actually find it works best deploying my Blood Claws directly in front of the front ramp, so the flamestorms have an unobstructed field of fire to the front on either side of them.

**Super Ready**

Are you actually getting to fire both flamestorms at once? Even though you can put the template over the hull, the hull itself then blocks the line of sight from the barrel, so to get both lined up means you're either barely clipping a model or two each side, or the unit you're attacking is heavily spread out.

If you can get this kind of line-up regularly, more power to you, and I want to play against your opponents.

The rest of the time, I've found it much better to simply settle for lining one template up in such a way that it catches most of the unit in one.

**B0B MaRlEy**

My opponents tend to spread out a fair bit after getting stung by my thunderfire cannons. They then regret it when the toastin' starts. BURN HERETIC!
Also once again those arguing their properly built land raiders could rotate more and who said they'd put up picturew didn't ...

**DeathReaper**

B0B MaRlEy wrote:
My opponents tend to spread out a fair bit after getting stung by my thunderfire cannons. They then regret it when the toastin' starts. BURN HERETIC!
Also once again those arguing their properly built land raiders could rotate more and who said they'd put up picturew didn't ...

I will. Pics are coming, my LR is in storage, getting it out today should have pics by tomorrow.