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.

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.

You mean playing the model as assembled is unfair?

There are advantages to both methods.

Having them in the back cuts an inch or 2 of range but allows more models to deploy forwards, whilst maintaining coherancy easily, but also blocks LoS when deployed.

Having them in front gives more range and cover to a unit coming from the side, but, makes it harder to get the unit all in the same spot to assault or keep coherancy. You might also have guys bitching.

 Deadshot wrote:
There are advantages to both methods.

Having them in the back cuts an inch or 2 of range but allows more models to deploy forwards, whilst maintaining coherancy easily, but also blocks LoS when deployed.

Having them in front gives more range and cover to a unit coming from the side, but, makes it harder to get the unit all in the same spot to assault or keep coherancy. You might also have guys bitching.

I think this was relevant in 5th edition, when you could only disembark 2" from an access point if I am not mistaken. In 6th you disembark one model at a time out of an access point and then move upto 6" away from the access point, so getting all your guys out of a Land Raider shouldn't be a problem I think.

 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?

You measure range from the actual weapon. Not from where the weapon would be if you had assembled your vehicle differently.

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.

Then that's something they should have considered when they were assembling their vehicle entirely for aesthetics rather than considering how it would function in game.

 insaniak wrote:

 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?

You measure range from the actual weapon. Not from where the weapon would be if you had assembled your vehicle differently.

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.

Then that's something they should have considered when they were assembling their vehicle entirely for aesthetics rather than considering how it would function in game.

Okay. But then I hope you're also don't think too fondly of players who switch Chapter Tactics every game.

Unless Chapter Tactics affects how the models are assembled, I don't see the connection...

 Deadshot wrote:
There are advantages to both methods.

Having them in the back cuts an inch or 2 of range but allows more models to deploy forwards, whilst maintaining coherancy easily, but also blocks LoS when deployed.

Having them in front gives more range and cover to a unit coming from the side, but, makes it harder to get the unit all in the same spot to assault or keep coherancy. You might also have guys bitching.

In 6th, there is no advantage to rear door mountings, only disadvantages; you may want to reread the 6th ed disembarkation rules.

Rear mounting loses out on rear/side rear disembarkation, and loses range on the guns.

Forward mounting nets you more disembarkation options, allows for slightly further in from straight along the sides, and adds to the range.

I find the idea of being stern with people only minorly deviating from wysiwyg even though their armylist is proper, while being fine with folks fielding their blue Ultramarines army one day as Iron Hands, the other as White Scars to be more off putting than nitpicking on the way a model is glued together. Either be stern on both, or dont mind either, thats what I would do.

These are just two examples I have observed at my local hobby store, I dont own a Land Raider myself, but found myself wondering how I would react given that situation.

Unless they have chapter specific characters, who are you to say what colour they should be, or what chapter tactics they can use?

 Imperator_Class wrote:
Unless they have chapter specific characters, who are you to say what colour they should be, or what chapter tactics they can use?

read page 77

GW makes it pretty clear that the color scheme of an army is a pretty obvious indicator as to what chapter tactics they use.

"In most cases, this will be obvious from the colour scheme and heraldry of your army."

Yup, cant have your blue marines with upside down omegas running about as Iron Hands, according to GW.


An exception to this is the existance of close to a thousand chapters, so those chapters that do not get a mention in the codex, and have no clear origin, or a chapter that you created yourself can have a CT that you pick.


Also, in the "Chapters of Your Own Devising" section:

"Many hobbyists choose to invent their own Space Marine Chapters, with their own unique colour schemes and heraldry. If you have done this with your own collection, you need to decide which First Founding Chapter your own Space Marine Chapter descends from, and adopt the correct Chapter tactics accordingly."

I dont think GW needs to be any clearer than that.

A player who creates his own chapter and swaps CTs every game is, simply put, a cheat.

There isn't a single rule you quoted that supports your statement. You're among assumptions unsupported by actual rules. Please don't do that.

so the phrase "you need to decide", as GW puts it, is meaningless?

 Sir Arun wrote:
so the phrase "you need to decide", as GW puts it, is meaningless?

Decide when?

When choosing a Space Marines detachment,

Oh, at list building. So you decide every time you build your list.

Sir Arun wrote:I find the idea of being stern with people only minorly deviating from wysiwyg even though their armylist is proper, while being fine with folks fielding their blue Ultramarines army one day as Iron Hands, the other as White Scars to be more off putting than nitpicking on the way a model is glued together. Either be stern on both, or dont mind either, thats what I would do.

There are a couple of problems with that statement.

The first is that the landraider sponsons being on the back instead of the front is nothing whatsoever to do with WYSIWYG.

The second is that determining which Chapter Tactics are in use from game to game is nothing whatsoever to do with the placement of the landraider sponsons.


There's this weird trend at the moment for people in rules discussions to claim 'If you enforce this rule, well then you have to also enforce [insert random completely unrelated rule]'. It's untrue, and adds nothing at all constructive to the discussion. Choosing to stick to the RAW in one situation in no way imposes some immutable law of the universe that would require you to then stick strict RAW in a completely unrelated situation. People need to stop presenting this idea as if it actually helps their argument, because it doesn't.

A player who creates his own chapter and swaps CTs every game is, simply put, a cheat.

So if I decide to have pizza for lunch today, I have to have pizza for lunch every day from now on?

Besides which, it would be unenforceable, because:

random player wrote:No, the army you played against yesterday, they were the Angels Incontinent. Yeah, they wear bone armour with chocolate trim, and have white square of toilet paper as their Chapter Badge, and use Ultramarine Chapter Tactics. This army is the Angels Flatulent. They wear beige armour with medium brown trim, and have a white square of censure (a tradition of their homeworld for marking undesirable citizens) as their Chapter Badge, and use Imperial Fist Chapter Tactics. Totally different Chapters... they just look similar.

And still has nothing to do with landraider sponsons...

I think his point was that how an army is painted, at least if its painted in a major chapters color scheme, has as much to do with WYSIWYG as how you physically model a piece.

As long as either thing is cleared up before the game I dont see a problem with either one.

He's saying that:
Gluing your sponsons in the back but playing them in the front is = to using your Black Templar's as Blood Angels.

In that regard I agree in so much as I think either is OK, as long as its decided on before the game by both parties, not during the game when its opportune.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
He's saying that:
Gluing your sponsons in the back but playing them in the front is = to using your Black Templar's as Blood Angels.

Yes, he is. And I'm saying that no, it isn't.

Which port you mount the sponsons on has nothing to do with WYSIWYG. Having the wrong weapons on there, or not having the sponsons on at all would be a WYSIWYG issue. But mounting the sponsons on the back and wanting to measure from the front is a completely different issue. It would be more akin to spending the entire gaming counting your heavy in your tactical squad as being 2" further to the left than he actually is as they move around the table.

There is no good reason to actually play that way.

Mounting the sponsons front or rear is fine. But once they're mounted, that's where they are.

When is this happening?? Basement/FLGS pick up game between buddies or at a local event? If we are in a basment/FLGS and playing for fun, whatever you would like to try is fine by me. Just keep it the same for the whole game and through out your army. At $75 we cant be buying models all the time. Now in a local event, check with your TO. He/she/it will have the final say but you can put your money down on a ruling that sounds like WYSIWYG.

I myself have 2 LR awaiting time to be worked on. Magnets for weapon/location swapping is on the drawing board.

Personally every LR I ever built had the sponsons are the front. I don't understand why you'd build a tank that can block it's own doors with it's side guns.

As for the idea that having the doors before the guns offers no advantages anymore... If you run a crusader with a lot of terminators or a full wolf guard and attached IC you may need the doors up there to ensure you have space to unload, especially if you're going up close to an enemy squad. Just my 2 cents.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As for the idea that having the doors before the guns offers no advantages anymore... If you run a crusader with a lot of terminators or a full wolf guard and attached IC you may need the doors up there to ensure you have space to unload, especially if you're going up close to an enemy squad. Just my 2 cents.

Why? 6th ed disembarkation rules mean that you can conga line out of a single door, so its perfectly doable out of the front ramp.


Also, I stand corrected. Placing the guns on the rear does have an advantage, namely a wider firing arc. I.e. you can shoot at stuff that is located further back to the side of your LR. And that wider firing arc becomes all the more important for the TL-Lascannons as 2" less range doesnt really matter much to them in most situations. Besides, it also makes sense from a fluff point of view that the Lascannons are at the back along with the engine/power generator.

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

 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.

You also then have the main access ramp at the back instead of the front.

 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...

 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°

 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°

There has been a thread about that, and I have one in hand right now and, with the plating there's no way you can rotate all the way.

I suspect that would depend somewhat on which version of the Redeemer you're using...

The redeemer only has one version , doesn't it?
Maybe the forgeworld grey knight one has different side plating, but other than that ...

It has slightly different plating but not enough that it would allow 180° turning, at least not judging by the image on FW. But the LRC and LRR shouldn't be able to rotate more than 90° either way.

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