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.

Are you allowed to place sponsors of tanks on unusual places of the tank if it fits an you clearly don't have any advantage of it.
Such as placing them on the rear, on the bottom, on the the top or two at one side and all kinds of other silly ideas with inferior line of sight arcs.

magnetize them. One of my favorite tricks with land raiders was to put them both on the same side of the tank. Same number of guns, just different locations - and it made it pretty clear that when I use the unarmed side to disembark, anything getting out had cover from whatever I was shooting with the tank.

Oh, you meant in an actual game or tournament? ask your opponent, but don't expect them to say, 'DUDE!' in a competitive environment - just in a friendly one.

There's a general expectation for models to be assembled as intended, but no real rules governing what you're asking.

Best to discuss with your opponent/group/tournament organiser if you want to do something you think might be unusual.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
There's a general expectation for models to be assembled as intended, but no real rules governing what you're asking.

Best to discuss with your opponent/group/tournament organiser if you want to do something you think might be unusual.

The rules actually assume that you're using Citadel Miniatures. A properly assembled Citadel Miniature will have the sponsons in the proper place. But yeah, ask your TO/opponents.

Unless you're playing Orks. Then anything goes, up to and including a fence to hold as many boys on the back of your BW as you can.

maceria wrote:
Unless you're playing Orks. Then anything goes, up to and including a fence to hold as many boys on the back of your BW as you can.

Ork kits come with instructions also. The rules still assume you're using Citadel Minitatures.

maceria wrote:
Unless you're playing Orks. Then anything goes, up to and including a fence to hold as many boys on the back of your BW as you can.

Sadly, ork transports no longer have the rule where their transport capacity was whatever you could pile on the back.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
There's a general expectation for models to be assembled as intended, but no real rules governing what you're asking.

Best to discuss with your opponent/group/tournament organiser if you want to do something you think might be unusual.

The rules actually assume that you're using Citadel Miniatures. A properly assembled Citadel Miniature will have the sponsons in the proper place. But yeah, ask your TO/opponents.

The rules assume citadel miniatures, yes.

But never specify how those miniatures are to be assembled. In fact many datasheets have certain aspects "as modeled" such as all weapon mountings on vehicles(exactly what the op is talking about).

The models are provided with assembly guides which clearly show where sponsons should be placed.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
There's a general expectation for models to be assembled as intended, but no real rules governing what you're asking.

Best to discuss with your opponent/group/tournament organiser if you want to do something you think might be unusual.

The rules actually assume that you're using Citadel Miniatures. A properly assembled Citadel Miniature will have the sponsons in the proper place. But yeah, ask your TO/opponents.

The rules assume citadel miniatures, yes.

But never specify how those miniatures are to be assembled. In fact many datasheets have certain aspects "as modeled" such as all weapon mountings on vehicles(exactly what the op is talking about).

If you buy a Predator Box and assemble it as instructed, you end up with a Citadel Miniature. If you buy a Predator Box and assemble it however you feel like, you end up with a personal creation and not a Citadel Miniature. "As modeled" is, I believe, an authors lazy way of not having to look at the model in question when writing rules.
"

 Kriswall wrote:

maceria wrote:
Unless you're playing Orks. Then anything goes, up to and including a fence to hold as many boys on the back of your BW as you can.

Ork kits come with instructions also. The rules still assume you're using Citadel Minitatures.

Not all kits come with instructions.

And following the instructions is not a rule anyway.

I'd also like to mention that many of the ork vehicles come only with the big shoota option although you can pay for 4 rockets or more. This modeling for advantage nonsense that got added to the BRB is a direct result of someone cheesing it out. Honestly though 2 sponsons on 1 side doesn't make that much sense BUT whether they go further up or back wouldn't be a big deal to me. Just be reasonable.

And...

Does that mean that tactial squads can only ever have missile launchers as heavy weapons?

What about the various forms of power weapons?

How do you build a vendetta?

Jesus Christ, people. The game assumes you're using Citadel Miniatures. If you're interested in organized play or playing with strangers who aren't going to think you're a jerk, build the models as they're intended to be built. No, there are no rules governing the assembly of the models. Hell, there are no rules requiring that you play with GW's models at all. You could play with coins. Line of sight is going to be tough to establish, but there are no rules.

If you want the generally accepted community house rules... here goes.

1. Use the expected GW models.
2. Build the models as expected.
3. If you want to build the GW models differently, they'd better not grant any sort of in game advantage AND had better look cool (this is subjective).
4. If you want to use non GW models, again, no in game advantage versus the normal models and they'd better look cool.

 Kriswall wrote:
Jesus Christ, people. The game assumes you're using Citadel Miniatures. If you're interested in organized play or playing with strangers who aren't going to think you're a jerk, build the models as they're intended to be built. No, there are no rules governing the assembly of the models. Hell, there are no rules requiring that you play with GW's models at all. You could play with coins. Line of sight is going to be tough to establish, but there are no rules.

If you want the generally accepted community house rules... here goes.

1. Use the expected GW models.
2. Build the models as expected.
3. If you want to build the GW models differently, they'd better not grant any sort of in game advantage AND had better look cool (this is subjective).
4. If you want to use non GW models, again, no in game advantage versus the normal models and they'd better look cool.

I don't think a Citadel model becomes not a Citadel model unless you have to start using greenstuff and plasticard to do such things. Some models have clear and multiple points to mount weapons

for example.

If you look at the landraider it can clearly mount the sponsons to the front or rear in 4 different locations. Why would there not be a rule saying "The front 2 side doors are for troop disembarkment only" or "Each side of the land raider must contain a side sponson if mounted." Also the art for land raiders shows both slots being used for side sponsons and one model uses all 4 doors to mount weapons. While it would be out of the ordinary to load your weapons to one side you are not altering the model in a way that Citadel did not intent you to do. like to mount side sponsons on a leman russ to one side you would clearly need to alter the model to achieve this unlike the land raider.

Games workshop also mounts weapons in both the front and rear on the main site.

Front mounted.

Rear mounted.

While none are mounted all to one side " most likely for aesthetic reasons" they can be mounted to all sides. (the left mirrors the right but is hidden)
http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt237/Alpha-Theta/LandRaiderTerminusUltra.jpg

I would like to add that by mounting weapons in such a way it leaves your land raider open to being more easily outflanked as you can only shoot models on the left or right and to the front without having to pivot the model. also the rear sponson would be incapable of firing forward if you mounted all your weapons to one side, so you would have to angle at something like 45 degrees to fire at a target to the front of your land raider.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

How do you build a vendetta?

Using the FW vendetta kit?

@ white wolf the examples you have given don't contribute much to the discussion. The instructions for the landraider and baneblade kits specifically tell you that you have options in where you can mount the sponsons, so that is still following the instructions.

Also, you have linked to the terminus pattern landraider, which has two twin linked lascannons on both sides.

I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just that the examples you've given don't support your points, if anything they do the opposite.

 JamesY wrote:
@ white wolf the examples you have given don't contribute much to the discussion. The instructions for the landraider and baneblade kits specifically tell you that you have options in where you can mount the sponsons, so that is still following the instructions.

Also, you have linked to the terminus pattern land raider, which has two twin linked lascannons on both sides.

I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just that the examples you've given don't support your points, if anything they do the opposite.

But Nowhere does it say that you must mount those weapons on the left and right. Just that it mounts side Sponsons. It is clear that any of the 4 doors can take a weapon and the only reason these weapons are not One side mounted is due to the Silliness of how it would look. Any advantage you would get by loading all weapons to one side would be mostly the shock of it. Also to mount both weapons onto one side one does not even need to alter the model. Until Someone Post something official that says they can not be mounted on one side or that they can be mounted on one side it's gray to say the least. Simply pointing to the instructions and saying it only shows you how to mount them on the rear or front doors also opens new bags or worms as some model kits don't even have a instruction manuals and some of the kits instructions are woefully lacking to say the least. Also if you want to stick religiously to what the instructions say then to mount magnets in a model goes against its design as it was intended that you build 1 varent and buy another box to build the next one.

In the end I fail to see why it matter what side you mount the weapons on it you pay the points. It's not like it's something that any gamer could not deal with. I have seen some really cheesy stuff and mounting weapons in slots they fit in out of the box is about as tame as it gets.

Depends on the tank. A landraider redeemer, for example, could gain an enormous benefit from having both on one side. I personally don't mind how people build their models, but if I'm playing against it then I'd expect firing to be measured from where the weapon should be, not from whatever crazy place it's been put.

 JamesY wrote:
Depends on the tank. A landraider redeemer, for example, could gain an enormous benefit from having both on one side. I personally don't mind how people build their models, but if I'm playing against it then I'd expect firing to be measured from where the weapon should be, not from whatever crazy place it's been put.

But it is not really that crazy, The mounts are there . If someone wanted to they could mount a gun on the left forward and a gun on the right rear or vice versa. I have never seen any rule stating where weapons should be mounted on models with multiple options. I could agree totally if someone was mounting 2 plasma gun sponsons to one side of a leman russ as they don't have a way to do it without altering the model.

Most of the this seems like (omg thats diffrent Clearly OP.) Just like Wrath knights, imperial knights, escalation, anything from forge world, and any new codex. It mostly is the fear of the unknown and change that seems to scare people. Besides even if it is more powerful so what take on the challenge it's not like if you lose you will die. It's a game. The fact everyone gets so upset over things like this is insane. I love Warhammer 40k but when I or someone else gets upset over it I remember that this is plastic army men. pretend armchair general and that to go crazy over such things is the definition of an overblown reaction.

Don't be patronizing, there is a huge difference between not agreeing with mfa and not wanting to play the unknown. I live in Nottingham and game at whw, fw, knights and super heavies are everywhere and I don't have any problem if someone drops a titan on the table. I would have a problem if they shoulder mounted a gun intended for the arms (thus potentially reducing my ability to find appropriate cover from one side of it) and tried to say 'it fits and it doesn't say anywhere I can't.'

 JamesY wrote:
Don't be patronizing, there is a huge difference between not agreeing with mfa and not wanting to play the unknown. I live in Nottingham and game at whw, fw, knights and super heavies are everywhere and I don't have any problem if someone drops a titan on the table. I would have a problem if they shoulder mounted a gun intended for the arms (thus potentially reducing my ability to find appropriate cover from one side of it) and tried to say 'it fits and it doesn't say anywhere I can't.'

It also does not state that they can or must even be placed on the 2 front or 2 rear doors leaving even the basic model open . Most players will place them 2 the front to get a clear advantage. Is this against the Rules? Some players place them to the rear as they look better. Is this against the rules? One player in here has said he mounted them to one side or at least suggested it. Is that against the rules? If the answer was so clean cut their would be no talking on the matter. One sentence in the rule book or anywhere really saying "Side sponsons must be mirrored" would clear this up but such a statement is absent from any reading material as of yet posted.

But for the titan to shoulder mount a weapon would require model altercation and movement to a slot not meant for that weapon. I can pick up a land raider and without doing anything special mount both weapons to one side. Also none of the side mounts can hold any different weapons.
Now if I took a standard land raider and swapped the Lascannon with the Heavy Bolter mounted at the front that would most closely match your example of the titan. but If I took the two lascannons and mounted them to the right side. Those weapons could theoretically go there. As they both are still side sponsons and mounted on the side.

While This seems to be something you would clearly oppose it would be unnecessary as it really offers no true advantage. Yes someone could mount the 2 flamers of a redeemer on to the right side but one could potentially block the others line of site to the target and also leave the left side open to a unhindered advance to an opponent. it does not offer any true benefits that can be seen without heavily play testing such a model and while it might have an advantage in one area it could gain 2 more disadvantages in another. Also as long as a opponent did not let the site of such a odd land raider cloud his judgment a skilled player would quickly be able to deal with such a model. To be honest such minor altercations in models often lead to more argument about the model than any true advantage for the model. In the end it's one model and will most likely be a burning wreck by turn 2-3. Even if it lives it is just as likely to do even worse than the standard model or be so even with it that it was not worth the time to mount them their.

I did not mean to sound too patronizing and while you may be more then willing to play such models some grab pitchforks to ensure they cant be used in tournament play or even in local games. This community as a whole or at least some of its most vocal parts seem so opposed to anything different they grown for days until they get one of their own or it's simply so unaccepted that it's basically banned. For years people feared forgeworld so much they became mere basement units or dust catchers on shelves. when escalation came out many were quick to say "yes you can play it just not with me and oh my TO buddy agrees and we banned them from most events but sure buy one." Now I see some saying they have house rules or at least suggested some that tell others to follow guidelines that are unclear and subjective. These suggested guidelines would basically kill converted models as it's not a carbon copy of GWs models or that it "looks cooler" than the standard model.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said, I have no problem with people building their models how they want for their collection. When it comes to gaming, however, it does affect the other person. You were right when you said before that it's just a game, but that's it, it's a game intended to be fun. Debates about legality of dodgy building and the advantages that might be gained detract from that fun. If you are happy to play against it yourself, then I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. It just won't be right for me.

Personally I dont care if someone put a scratch built tank on the table.
But if you go by strict tournament rules I suppose its important to build the model according to the assembly guide.
The main reason I think so is because most kits can be built as more than one kind of model,
and therefore, whats in the box clearly dont equal what the model may look like.
The assembly guide clearly show you how the different kind of tanks provided from that kit is built.

My response to seeing you put the two sponsons on one side would be "Why?" Why would you do it if it gives no inherent advantage? You claim it's not an issue, so you wouldn't have a problem if I asked you to make them mirrored?
The instructions in the kit, and in every GW publication show mirrored sponsons. Put them as far forward or as far back as they fit, yes, but never both on one side.

Why would you want them on one side anyways? It's not for fluff or rule of cool, in either case. Therefore, I'd assume MFA.
And if it isn't that much of a deal, please could the sponsons as mirrored, if you please, as per conventional modelling.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but as far as I know, if you assembled both sponsons on one side, you end up with an upside down sponson on one. So, clearly not normal or intended. Unless you can show me a successful version from one kit?

Per the assembly instructions first page, Redeemers have them at the front, Crusaders have them at the back:



Yet, the actual instructions have them both at the back:


If you can divine GW's intent from this, you're welcome to enlighten me.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

How do you build a vendetta?

Using the FW vendetta kit?

Does that make it a FW model or a citadel model at that point?

It is a Citadel Base model for certain, but then you are adding parts from a different manufacturer(owned by the same company does not matter); and you are certainly not building the base model with the Citadel instructions(they have no instructions for the lascannons).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

How do you build a vendetta?

Using the FW vendetta kit?

Does that make it a FW model or a citadel model at that point?

It is a Citadel Base model for certain, but then you are adding parts from a different manufacturer(owned by the same company does not matter); and you are certainly not building the base model with the Citadel instructions(they have no instructions for the lascannons).

FW is Citadel.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:My response to seeing you put the two sponsons on one side would be "Why?" Why would you do it if it gives no inherent advantage? You claim it's not an issue, so you wouldn't have a problem if I asked you to make them mirrored?
The instructions in the kit, and in every GW publication show mirrored sponsons. Put them as far forward or as far back as they fit, yes, but never both on one side.

Why would you want them on one side anyways? It's not for fluff or rule of cool, in either case. Therefore, I'd assume MFA.
And if it isn't that much of a deal, please could the sponsons as mirrored, if you please, as per conventional modelling.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but as far as I know, if you assembled both sponsons on one side, you end up with an upside down sponson on one. So, clearly not normal or intended. Unless you can show me a successful version from one kit?

I Disagree



It seems that you might indeed be able to assemble 2 right or left gun mounts. now to use them as left and right guns one must then be turned upside down or the gun must be turned 180 degrees so the armor plate is facing inward as opposed to out. But at first glance I think one could build 2 one sided guns but they would only work properly as one sided guns after that point. unless you used a lot of magnets and some skill.

I will unfortunately not be able to test this as I have no new land raider plans, I will most certainly not go buy one to indulge a forum on the internet.

My bubble is not "burst" if they can not be mounted to one side. It really has no bearing on how I play and to me it truly does not matter. I would face such a land raider as it does not pose any unusual threat that is not posed by the normal land raider. Why would someone make it this way? Someone might think it looks cool but that is subjective and as all subjective things is not true nor false but it seems there's not a clear answer on where you must mount them. I don't think GW sees it as important or else would they not have a rule somewhere? the land raider is not a new model and anyone who has even looked at one can clearly see that the weapons could potentially be mounted purely on one side or to the front and rear. At some point this must have come up and been asked if not with the land raider with a different model.

Now if it is the case that this is a MFA model then what else could be MFA? Does a have inch tall base make a model MFA? What about a reposed model? We all know GW makes some models with bland poses so if it is slightly lower than normal is that model now MFA? Does fitting magnates offer an advantage? Clearly it does to, be able to switch out weapons is a clear money saving advantage and to be able to field many different types of a vehicle has a game play advantage on a local lvl. Doing such a thing is clearly not intended by following the instructions in the box.

We are clearly dancing on a gray line that everyone is calling black and white.

Shandara wrote:Per the assembly instructions first page, Redeemers have them at the front, Crusaders have them at the back:

Spoiler:

Yet, the actual instructions have them both at the back:

Spoiler:

If you can divine GW's intent from this, you're welcome to enlighten me.

I can derive that GW clearly does not know if they want them at the front or back. seeing as below they are both on the back. yet shown in your pictures as being on both the front and rear.
They may truly not care which is what I think to be the case.

I seem to recall that one of the reasons to mount the sponsons on the back of a Land Raider Crusader was the 16 occupant capacity. If you put the weapons in the front, you may not be able to get your full squad out of the tank at once.