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.

While assembling my Land Raider I noticed that the instructions place the sponsons on the rear door hatches (marines exiting from the forward side doors would be walking in front of a weapon when exiting (makes no sense). I have noticed on dakka that a lot of people place the sponson weapons on the front hatch location, leaving the rear slots as doors. Is this MFA? with lascannon's range is obviously not the issue, however you get an increased firing arc as the hull is not blocking your shots. With short range sponsons, flamers and hurricane bolters, the extra two inches might make all the difference. I want to put them on the front but i dont want to be TFG. Whats the communities call ?

Hey

I wouldnt say its MFA, since you havent altered the model in any outside fashion.

Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

While it's technically MFA, it's not a big deal as long as you remember the fact the sponsons can't shoot past the armor line. Kinda interesting too how the description of the model says you can build the sponsons in the front or back (also, there are examples in the codex of it in both positions. They obviously didn't see it as a big deal...)

Also, I can't see how that would look good. I mean....they just look...better in the back

EDIT 3?: Actually, most of the pictures in the codex show the LR with the sponsons in the front. In the models section the Ultra ones are the only ones with the sponsons in the back. The Sallies one has it in the front, and all the drawings show them in the front

It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

 insaniak wrote:
It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

Then the codex just has pretty pictures of converted models (which are not legal RAW and depend on your opponent's consent). What matters is what the instructions for assembling the model tell you, and apparently they don't give you a choice about where to put the sponsons.

The GW website has the godhammer and crusader with rear mounted sponsons and the redeemer with forward mounted sponsons.

Personally I don't really care.

If it were a proscribed setup, then it would have been easy to design the kit with slightly different apertures to prevent it.

Anyone crying MFA over what, a possible extra 1, perhaps 2" is probably not going to give you a fun game, so it will be the least of your worries.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not MFA. Putting the sponsons on the front or rear hatch has always been optional. Take a look through the codex and you will find examples of both.

Then the codex just has pretty pictures of converted models (which are not legal RAW and depend on your opponent's consent). What matters is what the instructions for assembling the model tell you, and apparently they don't give you a choice about where to put the sponsons.

At that points it odd. The Chaos Landraider has you put them in the front, I believe the Godhammer LR variant has them in the front, and the Crusader/Redeemer has them in the back (that's usually how it's shown in the fluff pictures too, the sponsons are different based on variant)

GW has never had a problem with either way, and it's always been optional. Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist. MFA is a term made up by players to combat things people do on purpose to make their model better in game. Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses). At that point, if someone started complaining about that I would honestly pack up and not play them. The game just wouldn't be fun at that point, I could feel it.

I tend to see Lascannons mounted on either panel (usually back), while flamers and bolters are usually forward

The cover of the Crusader/Redeemer instructions has front-mounted sponsons on the Redeemer. There'll be people that call it MFA, but really it's only like a 2 inch difference.

I've heard of people mounting both sponsons on a single side of a Landraider. I call that MFA, but only because it looks stupid when I imagine it.

To be clear: I don't actually own any Land Raiders, so I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the OP is correct and the instructions do not include an option to mount the guns in the front position. If you do have permission in the instructions then my argument does not apply.

 washout77 wrote:
Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist.

You're right. RAW conversions of any kind are not allowed, and you need to agree with your opponent to make a house rule allowing them. "MFA" exists to define a certain kind of conversion that few people will accept, compared to the aesthetic-only conversions that most people do accept.

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

So then they're MFD when they put them on the back.

 Peregrine wrote:

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

You need that explained?

Really?

Beyond the sheer pedantry of quibbling over what, even in your example, is a very minor difference.

What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

What if they did it because it makes logical sense to mount a short range weapon towards the front, without any thought of how it would make to it in game?

What if they built it in 5th, where the disembark rules were different, and if you built it in the way you are suggesting you could end up with your own troops fouling your firing lanes once they got out?

I write this owning two Land Raider Redeemers, one of which has sponsons front, one of which has sponsons rear.

 Peregrine wrote:
Clear MFA. If the instructions tell you to place the guns in the back position, then you place them in the back position. If you want to convert your Land Raider to have more sensible guns then you can't ever claim the range advantage, you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

The only way you could even be considered to be TFG by MFA is by putting both sponsons on the SAME SIDE! Other than that you're good to go.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

Exactly. There is no rule that permits you to modify the standard model, therefore conversions are not permitted. If you want to use them you need to agree with your opponent to include a house rule, and that rarely includes allowing conversions that people feel are MFA.

 azreal13 wrote:
What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

Then they can count it as being in the rear position and measure appropriately. If it is done purely for aesthetic reasons they should have no problem with this.

What if they built it in 5th, where the disembark rules were different, and if you built it in the way you are suggesting you could end up with your own troops fouling your firing lanes once they got out?

Then it's definitely MFA, just for different reasons. You're still altering the model so that you gain an advantage rules-wise, the only difference is that the intent is to gain clear firing lanes rather than extra range.

 Peregrine wrote:
How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target.

Unless the target is behind the tank.

Or beside it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
What if they're mounting it forward because they prefer the look?

Then they can count it as being in the rear position and measure appropriately. If it is done purely for aesthetic reasons they should have no problem with this.

So you'd prefer guesswork? Strikes me as the sort of thing that would make you get upset.

It doesn't matter what you would "consider it".

The instructions that come with the model tell you to build it a certain way. If you build it ANY OTHER WAY you re breaking the rules. Positioning the guns further forward on the vehicle is CLEARLY MFA. Even if the difference is EXTREMELY minor, the difference still exists.

I would not have any problem with it if someone showed up with it modeled that way (and clearly GW doesn't see the problem, as they have theirs modeled both ways), but I can see how people would.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be clear: I don't actually own any Land Raiders, so I'm arguing this based on the assumption that the OP is correct and the instructions do not include an option to mount the guns in the front position. If you do have permission in the instructions then my argument does not apply.

 washout77 wrote:
Remember, to them MFA doesn't exist.

You're right. RAW conversions of any kind are not allowed, and you need to agree with your opponent to make a house rule allowing them. "MFA" exists to define a certain kind of conversion that few people will accept, compared to the aesthetic-only conversions that most people do accept.

Mounting the sponsons forward instead of back, which technically MFA, calling someone out on it is pretty low (considering exactly what they are benefiting from and the situations it actually uses).

How is it low? They're deliberately mounting short-ranged weapons closer to their target. It might not be a big deal with 48" LCs, but with a flamer template those extra inches are a significant improvement.

Then Peregrine found out that the instructions for the Land Raider Redeemer tell you to put the Flamestorm Cannons at the front... And his argument became invalid.

If you are a rules lawyer like the above poster then they should go as follows

Land Raider - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Redeemer - Sponsons at the front.
Land Raider Crusader - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Achilles - Sponsons at the front.
Land Raider Helios - Sponsons at the back.
Land Raider Prometheus - Sponsons at the back.

Fairly sure it's all a storm in a teacup anyway. Unless they've changed the LR instructions recently, I'm reasonably certain that they had it listed as option on the instructions... little dotted line running from the sponson part to both hatchways in the assembly diagram.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
It doesn't matter what you would "consider it".

The instructions that come with the model tell you to build it a certain way. If you build it ANY OTHER WAY you re breaking the rules. Positioning the guns further forward on the vehicle is CLEARLY MFA. Even if the difference is EXTREMELY minor, the difference still exists.

I would not have any problem with it if someone showed up with it modeled that way (and clearly GW doesn't see the problem, as they have theirs modeled both ways), but I can see how people would.

Actually, it matters very much what I would consider it, as this is a situation that isn't accounted for in the rules, so it would come down to opponent's permission.

Frankly, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but anyone who gets bogged down in the minutiae of the game to the point of making a thing out of this isn't likely to be someone I would continue to play.

ARBITRARY USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS.

I believe the instructions have the lascannons and hurricane bolters in the back position, and the flamestrorm in the front. That is how I run my land raiders, but I have the guns all magnetized, so if anyone ever complained about it, I could just as easily switch it back.
Never had this come up really, but have definitely seen some MFA. Most common one I see is modifications to skimmer/jetbike height via the clear plastic stand. Saw a squad of necron destroyers a guy ran set up with three sets of changeable mounts; one the standard height, one really high, and one so low they were almost touching the base.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
you need to count them as being in the rear position if it ever comes up.

This is not actually a rule anywhere in the BRB.

I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no rule that permits you to modify the standard model, therefore conversions are not permitted. If you want to use them you need to agree with your opponent to include a house rule, and that rarely includes allowing conversions that people feel are MFA.

Actually if you want to take that route, there are no rules telling you how to paint or assemble your models at all in the rules.

Conversions, painting, model assembly etc are simply not covered in the rules at all. MFA is a player convention and not a rules convention. Nothing says you can have the sponsons on different sides, nothing at all telling you the position of the sponsons in the rules.

Bottom line, put them in either position.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

You're right. But one of the conventional house rules for allowing conversions is that you have to be willing to count it as the standard model if there's any dispute over it.

Actually if you want to take that route, there are no rules telling you how to paint or assemble your models at all in the rules.

It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I should have been more clear. I singled out the Quote I was talking about. That part is not in the rules.

You're right. But one of the conventional house rules for allowing conversions is that you have to be willing to count it as the standard model if there's any dispute over it.

Right House rule...

It says Citadel models, and the models come with instructions.

Indeed they do, but no actual rules in the BRB telling you to follow those instructions.

All the pictures I've seen of the redeemer have the sponsons on the front, so I go with that. Also, when I bought my crusader it was the old one with metal sponsons...I can't find the pic right now but the cover of the box (and GW's website) had a black templars crusader with hurricane sponsons on the front, so I did that. I usually go off the front of the box.

For those who aren't familiar with the model, you can either put a door or a sponson on either the front or the back side openings on the landraider, both the pieces fit (aka no conversion required). I went with the cover of the box for mine.

Furthermore, it makes logical sense for the flamethrowers to be oriented forward for greater effect, rather than roasting the sides of your tank.

I don't think this qualifies as modeling for advantage, personally.

I think that either method is acceptable, since I haven't ever seen a written rule that says it has to be one way or the other. This is different than, say, modeling a dreadnought stretching his arm way out in order to extend the range on his flamer. I think either position of the sponsons has been conventionally acceptable.

Apparently this is a very polarizing issue though.

What it is, is a non-issue that people are digging their heels in about for some reason. I have mine modeled to the front and have never had one person complain about it. No T.O. from Adepticon to The Bay Area Open will give you a second glance for that either. There are bigger issues than this to worry about.

 cvtuttle wrote:
What it is, is a non-issue that people are digging their heels in about for some reason. I have mine modeled to the front and have never had one person complain about it. No T.O. from Adepticon to The Bay Area Open will give you a second glance for that either. There are bigger issues than this to worry about.

Not only is it a non issue but the people who are making an issue out of it are wrong...