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 have noticed something interesting with the land raider. There are 2 weapon ports on each side of the hull, but only one weapon. I have decided to put the weapon on the back of my land raider, but I just noticed something: GW has not been clear with the placement of the turrets. The FW Land raider Reedemer, Helios and other variations, have front mounted sponsons. The GW land raiders, however, have back mounted weapons. I wish to be enlightened on where the weapon goes.

Sources:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Tanks/LAND-RAIDER-HELIOS-CONVERSION-KIT_.html
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440276a&prodId=prod1080114

Its just an option. But for the love of god put the turrets in the rear place. I hate when i try to disembark my marines and they have to squeeze to stay in coherency while getting out.

Yeah, they can be mounted front or rear. It's up to you.

Put them at the front, so you don't have to put as much of the vehicle out of cover to fire.

Both have their pros and cons.

Put the weapons on the front, and you make it harder to fit a whole squad out the front hatches. Not always a problem, but sometimes terrain/enemy models makes it hard.

Put the weapons at the back, and it is harder to get LoS for various reasons (angles, disembarked troops in the way, etc).

Either I think are fine. I like the look of them mounted on the back - it provides a more 'balanced' look, IMHO.

Personally, I prefer to the front. You'd have to be dumb as gak to engineer a vehicle where your passengers have to step out in front of the very guns that are supposed to be supporting their assault. It sounds too much like a great way to put nice clean 4" holes through the chest plates of a few SMs, IMO.

I agree that the front is best. Stepping infront of a hurricane bolter is something not even a terminator would try. And for what its worth, even GW's own website has them pictured as both ways.

Place mine in the front.

not possible to consider MFA. the GW construction manual showed me that I can put it either way.

I believe that.

I placed my LRR/LRC sponsons in the back so it is waaaaaaaay easier to disembark at weird positions. As everyone says, each have their pro's and cons.

I build my models so they look the koolest first then worry about functionality second

Personally, I don't care to use the Land Raider that often. But when I do it mostly serves as a heavy tank with impressive firepower that happens to carry troops, not a heavy transport that happens to have impressive firepower. So, it normally sits in the back dumping heavy bolter fire into light-med infantry and lascannons into heavy infantry or vehicles. That being the case, the position of the side sponsons serves very little purpose and I believe putting them up front makes more sense than behind..

I like the look of mine at the back, but on my redeemer, I put them on front for the extra range on the templates.

Or try this

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.phoenixhobbies.com.au/picture_library/200801031733010.wh%2520space%2520marine%2520terminus.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.phoenixhobbies.com.au/shop_online.php%3Fcategory_id%3D26%26store_productsPage%3D4&h=219&w=392&sz=73&tbnid=-cmBDO3A3NZI0M:&tbnh=69&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLandraider%2BTerminus%2BUltra&usg=__nCzwjFVaQM6FR5q5ofnly_GuiG0=&sa=X&ei=kllWTOq2KJKM0gSH_p31Ag&ved=0CCwQ9QEwBA