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.

So I had a fun conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend while playing a friendly 1100 point game about Land Raiders and their different types / the way they are built.

Has anyone brought up in the past, why it is that some people build their Land raiders with the sponson gun portions, within the back half of the Land Raider?

See we wondered this because having bought several in the past, we noticed 2 had their weapons on the front half and 1 had its weapon on the back half. Same model, same stuff, different aesthetic look to it...

My main concern is, if these things would be considered "breaking the rules" because of the front placement of the guns... But then I wondered to myself, If the guns were in the back, and models used the door to get our of the land raider, wouldn't they just take a Lascannon to the face as tehy are leaving their Xport?

These are the things I think about on Saturday nights lol

Whats yall's take on the matter?

First off, go ahead stratcom

Second, short answer no.

Reason being, the scale of the models are way off. That door on the side is going to be around 15' tall. Remember its going to need to accommodate a terminator. As they step down, they are still going to be below the barrel of the las cannon. Not to mention the cannons can elevate and de-elevate.

The real question is what about the hurricane bolters XD

One could argue that this is Modeling for Advatage, which is a big no no in the BRB. However sense it doesn't ever say expliciatly where the door is vs where a sponson is, it is kind of up to you. However thkabalpuphorsefishguy (thanks for making me type that out, I feel dirty now) is right, the scale is way off, even more so on the redeamer. Show me how you can cram 8 terminators in there, nevermind 16 marines.

See I was wondering about the whole Modeling for Advantage, but then figured anyone who would bring that up would just be a beatnik-sob lol I see so many weird variants of LRs out there...

Imperial Deceit wrote:
One could argue that this is Modeling for Advatage, ...

Not very successfully. The kit was designed for the sponsons to go on either hatch. This was mentioned in the release article in White Dwarf back when the kit was released, and the original instructions for the LR had it shown as optional as well.

At some point they updated the instructions so that these days, IIRC, the Redeemer has them on the front and the other variants have them on the back... but they're shown throughout the Marine codex in either position, which most players from my experience take as an indication that it's really not that big a deal where you put them.

Personally yes I would want to hop out behind the face melting cannons rather than in front of them. Sadly logic and 40k model kits rarely go together.

There was a multipage thread that i do not even want to link to regarding the placement of landraider weapons. there was pissing, moaning, name calling and asshattery.

Bottom line, Its your model build it how you think it looks cool. If you play in an overly competitive environment and you think guys may give you grief that placing the weapons forward gives you extra range, magnetize the kit.

You will have people telling you putting side sponsons on the forward hatches of a Land Raider is modelling for advantage, with the argument that you should be putting them further back.

However, it is your model, and you are free to place it wherever you wish. Various official sources have shown both positions being used, and if you look at the Forge World Land Raider Mk IIb, you will see that it's not modelling for advantage at all.

Didn't we just have like, a 8 page or so thread on this that got shut down?

But yes, it's your model and honestly don't listen to people over the internet if your local group is all fine with it. Most likely you will never need to play THEM, but you will need to play your group

 washout77 wrote:
Didn't we just have like, a 8 page or so thread on this that got shut down?

But yes, it's your model and honestly don't listen to people over the internet if your local group is all fine with it. Most likely you will never need to play THEM, but you will need to play your group

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/512602.page

For those who want a re-cap. I think that thread got bogged down in the principle of MFA, not so much the details of the land raider.

I've seen this before... And my argument s this: if I was going to exit the side door of an APC, why would I walk in front of the weapons system? It makes almost no sense to have it towards the rear, especially with a door directly in the line of fire. So I argue that it is not modeling for advantage, it is merely practical and more realistic.

what i think it really comes down to is what variant you are using for example the Redeemer model the guns in the front hatch not for modeling for advantage just the plain and simple fact i dont think someone will step out of their land raider into an inferno coming from their tanks guns. But the other variants its your call do you want to be the guy that hits someones highpoint vehicle when it would clearly be out of range if it was in the back hatch for the last hull point and swing the game in your favor.

talljosh85 wrote:
I've seen this before... And my argument s this: if I was going to exit the side door of an APC, why would I walk in front of the weapons system?

If you're going to exit from a Land Raider, why would you use the inconvenient side hatches?

It's an assault vehicle. They're Space Marines. That assault ramp drops, you storm out from the assault ramp. I always felt the side hatches were more there for emergency exits. In that case, you wouldn't need to worry about walking in front of the weapons, since they wouldn't be firing.

Personally, I like Godhammers having their Lascannons at the back (they're meant to draw power from the larger powerplant anyway, so the Mechanicus wouldn't want to risk longer connections if necessary), and Redeemer/Crusader sponsons at the front (they're shorter ranged, and their ammo is likely in the hull behind the sponson anyway). I think overall the aesthetic is better with any sponson at the back, but the short ranged weapons just make more sense at the front.

Well, the side hatches might be more direct. Maybe the vehicle is immobilized but you need to assault to a flank. Or the enemy just moved to the side and your assault will be out of the side door. Or, if the Landraider is like the current US hydraulic ramps, it is broken or remakably slow so going out the side hatch makes more sense. Either way, troops exiting out in front of a weapon system is a bad idea. So guns to the front I say.

I consider this question for "usability".

The big flamers or hurricane bolters as mentioned would suck in a big way from the back.

I still do not like the idea of stepping out of a vehicle immediately in front of guns, it just looks like a stupid thing to do.

Only viable option is the lascannons on the back but you cannot shoot both guns unless at something wider than a land raider (??) so again, useability.

From a "reality" point of view I agree it makes no sense to have the weapons behind the hatches. From a playability point of view, its a land raider so you can run it around backwards all day long with no real change in effectiveness. If you need to assault out of it, you may as well run the thing sideways at your enemy. You don't need to assault out of the front hatch to gain benefit of the Assault vehicle rule, and if you're close to a target, you're most likely to be using PotMS to fire the other set of lascannon at a different target anyway

I'm reading that older thread, and find it astounding that my newly built and currently being painted Broadside, Riptide, and Enforcer Tau battlesuits are only "counts-as", because I built them with different heads than the ones they came with. Heads made from other Tau bits, but because they're not what the instructions depict, only "counts-as".

As a frequent scratch builder...I don't care one bit. I make sure I'm wysiwig and keep building. Size I don't see as an advantage (bigger anyway) it just makes it harder for cover.

Just had a thought, think about a landraider, it's an Assault Tank

So when the marines reach the enemy lines, where are the enemy tanks going to be, on the flanks or behind it...

Well tanks like the Term Ultra have Las on rear and additional las in front hatch. Therefore If i were to do it all again i would use magnets on all sides so to be able to make the land raider body whatever variant i would want including mounting the main gun front or rear on standard pattern land raider. I also like the front hatch w/o weapon on crusaders being the vehicle is a "assault vehicle" and thus gives more front deploying options at least in my opinion for assaulting marines to jump out of vehicle and assault instead of just from the front ramp (side front left or right .. perhaps does not matter but i like it lol).