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.

This is a modelling issue as well as a gameplay one. I just wanted to get a few opinions on the following (and on the overall subject of weapon placement legality) before I proceed with converting.

I bought a 2nd hand land raider redeemer / crusader. I want to magnetise it so I can switch between either configuration. The problem is that the sponsons have been glued in the rear sockets, and it is too much work to alter that. So while the hurricane bolter config is fine, when I want to equip those flamestorm cannons, naturally I want them up front, not at the back. Therefore what I propose doing is counting the flamestorms as if they were forward mounted for the purposes of firing, LOS, etc. I can use a "proxy sponson" using a piece of card to measure when firing if necessary.

Similarly I have a predator which instead of sponsons, I've given a hull and cupola mounted weapons. Again I plan on ignoring the positions of the weapons for gaming purposes, and counting them as sponson mounted.

What do you reckon, would this be considered acceptable by most players? My reasoning is yes it is, given the considerable difference in weapon placement on existing kits, such as various predator models,and particularly ork vehicles. I've also seen some players lengthen gun barrels etc. Basically I don't have the cash or time for a 2nd land raider kit, but more importantly I don't to come across as taking the p**s with the rules to new players. Neither do I want my vehicles to be unplayable in tournaments.

Any opinions appreciated, thanks

Opinions are going to vary. Some players won't have a problem with it.

Personally, I'm a big fan of sticking with the model that is actually on the table. If I have an issue with a conversion, I'll point that out up front... but once models are on the table, I would much, much rather just use the actual positions of the guns instead of messing about trying to figure out where they would be if they were mounted somewhere else. Too much bother.

Hey there.

Unless you convert your model to give your self a game advantage, I'd have no problems with it personally.

The Landraider is not stated as having the sponsons in forward or rear position - so you are good-to-go in whatever.

Some models however are more unclear as per the wording or rather lack of wording. One example is the IG Taurox Prime.

Most place like NOVA Open Vages Open and Adepticon will not care if you did something like that. In my experience the only people that have issues with things like that are the local players that try to talk a big game.

I think if you use the position of the guns and it makes some kind of sense, its okay.

If you have 4 lascannons stacked on top of each other on a pole that sticks 6" out the top of the landraider and claim it has 360 degree fire for all the guns you might not find people to play with.

I think if you take weapons that were meant to be sponson mounted and changed where they were to gain an advantage of having better firing arcs, ie sponson to turret/copula then people would be bothered. It does not make a difference at range, but up close and from the sides it would normally have limited ability to bring its guns to bear.

Some weapons don't have actual positions for where they go, like bolt on big shootas/rokkits for ork battlewagons. they are shown on the sides, on the front, on the back turret, etc. No real rule as to where to place them.

 insaniak wrote:
I would much, much rather just use the actual positions of the guns instead of messing about trying to figure out where they would be if they were mounted somewhere else. Too much bother.

I know what you mean, and I would almost always be happy to stick to that...I'm trying to justify an exception for the flamestorms because having such shot range, they're really hampered by being stuck back 2" down the hull (a minor issue for for any other weapon, but I feel it would really limit their usefulness.