Land Raider Sponsons

[ntgcleaner]

I'm pretty sure this is a stupid question and I will get a lot of flack for it... but...

 

So, I was magnetizing the sponsons and doors on my Land Raider last night when I got to thinking. Can you mount two TL LC on one side of the LR? We can call it a flanking LR. In the DH rulebook it says "The Land Raider is armed with a Twin-linked lascannon in each side sponson and..." A side sponson is just a mount for a lascannon (Or the like) and I do not know where to find any rules stating that you need to have both sponsons on opposite sides.

 

I don't have the directions on building a Land Raider near me, but doesn't it have four positions where a single sponson can go? (usually forward sponsons or rear sponsons)

 

It only says it has 3 access points, which means we still must have two side doors and it only says one TLLC in each side sponson. Does this mean that each side, left and right has to have a sponson? or can we place both lascannons on one side and two doors on the other?

 

I am asking because this could be an effective tank at outflanking or "wrangling" an opponent, effectively making a large circle of death without having to worry about something being too close to the front or back. It would also be good when we know we need the extra room from that rear hatch and still have both lascannons firing.

 

It may not be as effective as I am thinking, but I just want to be clear on it.

[Validar]

having my two flamestorm cannons on the same side sure sounds appealing, but I hardly think it is legal <_<

[ntgcleaner]

I don't know... I am trying to find a rule that says against it... can anyone help me out trying to find a rule prohibiting the use of two weapons on the same side of a tank?

[Eddie Orlock]

I don't know... I am trying to find a rule that says against it... can anyone help me out trying to find a rule prohibiting the use of two weapons on the same side of a tank?

The fundamental philosophy of warhammer rules design, and tjus, interpretation, is better described as 'permissive' rather than 'proscriptive'.

 

In other words, the books tell you what is allowed, not what is disallowed. It's similar to why I can't smash your models with a hammer, the rules don't say I can't, they also don't say I can.

 

It is the expectation that you will construct the models in a manner congruent with the images depicted in the official materials, and I defy you to find a Land Raider in Imperial service in an official document with both sponsons on one side.

[ntgcleaner]

for fluffs sake, that's all good and well. I understand the reasoning behind what you're saying.

 

In other words, the books tell you what is allowed, not what is disallowed.

This irritates me. Not you, or the fact that you are saying it, but it seems people flip flop this idea all the time to usually (not necessarily now) bring it to their own benefit.

 

Some people say, if it is not written, then there is not a rule. So I can say, Since it's not written anywhere in the rulebook, there is no rule stating it is disallowed. (even to the extreme of smashing your pieces with a hammer)

 

Then you can say "if it is not written, it is assumed" which is even worse. Since it's not written, we must assume that it is because of this.

 

I still have yet to see real facts stating that I can not mount two weapons on one side of a land raider.

[panbient]

I still have yet to see real facts stating that I can not mount two weapons on one side of a land raider.

 

ultimately it boils down to this.

 

physically you can make it happen without much hassle just make sure your las cannons can rotate within the sponsons.

 

if you're trying to use it in a tournament then it's up to the organizers to give it the ok. if not then it's only up to your opponent.

 

i say go for it. personally i keep mine in a offset form, front right and back left positions, it just looks cooler to me.

[Eddie Orlock]

In other words, the books tell you what is allowed, not what is disallowed.

This irritates me. Not you, or the fact that you are saying it, but it seems people flip flop this idea all the time to usually (not necessarily now) bring it to their own benefit. ...

There has been a long tradition of 'modelling abuses' associated with this game. What you're proposing is similar to the people model their close assault Wraithlords crawling through the dirt in a foetal position to reduce their profile, or the folk who'd model their Gaunts on flying stands claiming they're leaping so they could screen their Hive Tyrant.

 

Both of the above have been done, and both would get you ostracised if you tried them today.

 

It wouldn't be a conversion that would be perceived as being done to enhance the flavour of the game, it would be one done entirely to gain an in game advantage.

 

You know who probably has a firm take on this one way or the other the jeske. He'd probably be able to cite a ruling for you, but if you showed up to a game against me with something like that I'd tell you to go take a hike.

[ntgcleaner]

but if you showed up to a game against me with something like that I'd tell you to go take a hike.

 

Haha, I completely agree with you. I would never even consider this in a tournament game or even a game with a new opponent that was not tournament, I actually don't think I would ever play it this way unless my opponent and I agreed to have a "silly" type of game with some made-up rules, which is fun btw.

 

You bring up a good point about modeling abuse. Though, I have yet to actually see any modeling abuse, I can only imagine how bad it can get. I am a firm believer of wysiwyg, but there need to be standards.

[JCarter]

Instead of indignant denials and refusing toplay, just exploit the design. Two sponsons on a side severely limits the firepower directly forward and aft. As the first weapon lost, take the forward sponson and the LR has no sponson firepower directly forward. Also, two of its three exits will be toward the side of the table or off it. I wouldn't refuse to play; I'd just exploit the above.

[Commander Sasha]

There was a good discussion thread on this last year; can anyone who understands the search function find it please?

 

I personally fall in to the "choose the right tools for the job" camp, so tailor army lists to opponents, and would have no problem fielding or opposing a matched pair of Raiders; look at the Imperial Armour tank formation diagrams, half the sponsons are redundant.

 

An Apocalypse unit of front command tank with forward-mounted sponsons and all the command toys, with double side-loaded flanking tanks? Yummy!

[Commander Sasha]

...and as JCarter says, the weaknesses balance the gains: a canny opponent would pincer with Meltas, and one side would go down!

[kennedy]

I don`t have a rulebook available, but in the vehicle section doesn`t one of the pictures for line of sight only show a sponson on each side of the tank? Not sure if that means anything, but just a thought.

[Mazer Rackham]

If you came to play me with a tank like that I'd call you a brave man and rather mad (in a friendly way!).

 

I doubt there's a rule preventing it, the only real advantage is that you can deploy all your men behind the LR, but otherwise that configuration has glaring downfalls - line of sight for the sponsons, the front hull-mounted heavy bolter, instead of two lascannons each with 180 degree LOS, you've got two lascannons each with 90 degrees LOS...I don't see anything wrong with it to be honest - I could just take an LR and face it forwards and get the same if not more firepower and lose no protection.

 

You're still only moving it 6-12 inches, with two twin-linked lascannons, you're not adding anything...

 

It's like a Terminus "Light" but makes more sense.

 

I'd have no problem with it - tournament legal? Maybe not. Different? Absolutely.

 

MR.

[stoopicus]

For a normal LR or Crusader this seems rather pointless. Especially in the Apoc scenario described above, where someone will just deepstrike directly behind the command tank and melta them with relative impunity to *any* of the heavy weapons, due to arcs.

 

However, for the LRR - having both flamestorm cannons on one side is a huge advantage. I can't see it being allowed by any opponent, much less a tournament.