# Land Raider Sponson confusion



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

Hey everybody,

Whilst looking over some of the Project Logs here, I saw a member asking why the original poster had decided to place their LRs sponsons on the rear hatch over the front one.

This got me thinking about all the LR I've ever seen and how most people place the sponsons to the rear hatch. Given the LRs capacity as a troop transport the idiocy of placing a sponson (in real terms) 1) over the hatch that is meant to be opening and 2) placing your disembarking troops within your own line of fire. It made me think, where did we get this notion of rear hatch sponsons?

A quick browse of the GW site started to shed some light on this.

The humbe LR:









The LR Crusader:









I stopped and said; 'Ok so GW places the sponsons on the rear hatches on their -Studio- models. The models that get placed in all the photo shoots for rulebooks, codices and White Dwarves and the models that become the cover art of the box for that unit. Surely this is the reason we do this. It's shown to us in that form from everywhere. This is how a LR is meant to be'

But then I see something.










The most recent LR (out of GW) has its sponsons mounted to the front. This brought up an interesting idea. How many different versions of the LR have their sponsons in the front hatch or the back hatch. The pool is roughly 4 tanks looking simply at GW, but FW has variants of the LR, and many people do purchase and use them. Is there a similar confusion there as well.

Back Hatch:
Land Raider (GW)
Chaos Land Raider (GW)
LR Crusader (GW)
LR Helios - Complete Kit (FW)
LR Prometheus (FW)
LR Reinforced Armour (FW)
Front Hatch:
LR Redeemer (GW)
LR Proteus (FW)
LR Armoured Proteus (FW)
LR Achilles (FW)
Spartan Assault Tank (FW)
Grey Knights LR Redeemer (FW)
MKIIB Land Raider (FW)
LR Helios - Conversion Kit (FW)
LR Spaced Armour (FW)
Now I am aware that the FW LR Helios appears twice, one in each type. This is because FW shows a different model between each kit, and both of these models, have sponsons placed differently.


From the looks of things, a front hatch sponson trumps that of a rear hatch sponson (9 to 6). However it can be argued that FW has no weight on the GW created rules for games. And that being the case discounting FW models, rear hatch sponsons win 3 to 1.


I decided to read into the kit details that GW places on it's site and I found this gem.




> This box set contains one multi-part plastic Space Marine Land Raider. This large 101-piece kit can be assembled with the twin-linked lascannon sponsons towards the front or the back of the vehicle, and has a working assault hatch to the front.


Hang on.




> "can be assembled with the twin-linked lascannon sponsons towards the front or the back of the vehicle"


GW it appears has given us a choice. We can go for the iconic (albiet illogical) placement of the sponsons at the rear hatch, or the more logical placement at the front hatch. But what does this do to the game?


Gaming wise you'll be measuring your range from the gun barrel. The seemingly insignificant choice of front or back hatches, now becomes a matter of one inch between a hit or possibly falling short of your target. Or does the placement of the sponsons even have a direct effect of the gaming result?



The new 6th Ed BRB even has variations:
Space Wolves with rear hatch mounted sponsons
Blood Angels with front and rear mounted sponsons
Dark Angels with rear mounted sponsons
Grey Knights with rear mounted sponsons
So Heresy, here are the facts. Between GW and FW there seems to be no clear decision on whether LR sponsons should be mounted to the front or rear hatch. Their own site states that the kit can assembled in either way. GW has done what it seems to do so well and they have given us...


a choice.


----------



## OgreChubbs (Dec 13, 2011)

you put it in the back so you can shoot people who are to fat to fit in the door or get in the way....seniors day


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

for most LR i would put them on the back as it means you have a wider firing arc, however if you have a template weapons put it on the front as it gives you a better chance to hit things


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

i always go guns front because it jusr seemed stupid to deploy troops directly in front of your guns. that said, back in the days of 2" from hatch deployment it was sometimes a challenge to maintain chohesion in deployment if you had to use one or both side hatches, but it could be done. now there's no rea reason not to
unless the vehicle's codex entry specifically states where and how the guns are mounted you can put them wherever you like


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

A quick thought on this subject. Is there any reason that you are not allowed to put both sponsons on the same side and disembark from the other side. Just that given that the rules(excluding potms) dictate that all the weapons on a vehicle have to shoot at the same target, this would make the lr with the weapons all on the same side more efficient, as you would find it far easier to have all your guns trained on the same target. The hit rate for the flamestorm cannons on the redeemer would vastly increase.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

I don't think there is anything stopping you, and it would actually make a bit of sense to do that. The only possible thing stopping you is the kit itself, in that the sponson molds are designed as one left and one right.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

To me it seems to be a question of aesthetics. We are used to vehicles being quasi-aerodynamic so we expect them to taper toward the front; therefore most people find sponsons look better in the rear half of the tank. this is doubly true of long-barrelled weapons.


----------



## SOulDOubt (Jul 13, 2011)

I put my Lascannon sponsons in the front because of the hatches even though I like the look of them more in the rear, I later thought, anything embarked in a LR would most likely use the assault ramp in the front so the sponson/hatch issue was solved for me. I would just assume the side hatches would not be used.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

I bought two Land Raiders for a tournament last year and put one set of Lascannons at the front and one at the back just for variety. To be honest it strikes me as down to personal preference, much the same as with Baneblades and Shadowswords, especially since most troops are going to get out the front with Land Raiders.


----------



## Tensiu (Aug 15, 2009)

I'd prefer to place sponsons on the rear, cause I'm more fluffy type, and I guess since assault ramp is on the front, and troops sit in the front part of LR, then generators/ammo/promethium would be placed on the rear. I know, it'd be still possible to place sponsons on the front, but honestly, IMO Lascannons on LR looks good only on the back - hurricane bolters and big-ass flamers looks great on the front, but it's just me.


----------



## AG. (Sep 28, 2010)

I think it's best to put them on the front for a few reasons.

It looks better, as your models wont be getting out into a fire corridor.

It makes your land raider slightly better for disembarkation - as you have the options of the assault ramp at the front, or the rear doors at the back. 

You can target both sponson weapons on a taget directly in front of the Land Raider if they are positioned in the front slots. If they are at the back the body of the tank blocks LOS.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Lascannons in the back, everything else in the front. AG has a good idea about firing arcs thouhg. It's pretty rare to be denied a 48" shot, even on a 6x4 table. With the new 6" deployment it means even terminator bases can get out easier from the front. I do, however, magnetize everything on my LR's and can field them whatever way works best for the squad embarked. I can also sneak out a LR terminus if I see my buddy's baneblade on the table.


----------

