Lemondish Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Looks like you could put them easily on the front tho. ^^ Anybody remember the old playstation game twisted metal? Stick em on the front a relive the days of glorious vehicular combat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I put mine at the back but it does make little sense... Also means you have to stop firing when the people inside use them to disembark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I put mine at the back but it does make little sense... Also means you have to stop firing when the people inside use them to disembark. Stop, drop and roll man :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aramis K Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Looks like you could put them easily on the front tho. ^^Anybody remember the old playstation game twisted metal? Stick em on the front a relive the days of glorious vehicular combat! Shout out for Interstate '76 for covering muscle cars in machine guns, and because it had a button which just made your character quote poetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doghouse Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I think the Land Raider has suffered as a design for decades due to being based on a eighties sci fi inspired design, it has always been an odd beast. It used to be an either or, either you use it to tank hunt or as a dedicated transport so it used to sit at the back or go charging in. Obviously the Crusader changed this. While the lascannon design is flawed, one way of looking at it is the general idea is that the troops are expected to disembark via the assault ramp at the front. The side hatch isn't overly practical given that the passengers are going to be leaving single file but you could head canon it by having the machine spirit override firing as Astartes leave the hatch. If the Raider is close enough for the troops inside to get out then I think the crew are much more likely to revert to the heavy bolters rather than the longer range lascannon as supporting fire because of the limitations of the sponson fire arcs. Now getting back to the Crusader or Redeemer patterns having the sponsons at the back would make far less sense. The assault ramp dropping to expose the main reactor/engine is another story though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Company Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 @Doghouse Not to mention the assault ramp making a nice entry point for weapons fire into the troop bay... let us not forget what happened to allied troops at the D-Day landings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doghouse Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Exactly, from a sci fi fantasy perspective it's the rule of cool, the drawbridge crashing down as the troops come spilling out of the castle guns blazing to take the fight to the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNCenturion Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The emperor protects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The mini assembler did it wrong and mounted them at the back. They were designed for the front and the art is for the front. In 3rd edition it was better to have the doors at the front to give you extra inches to disembark. Likewise was modelling the front door open which gave an extra 1/4 inch deployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 To be fair the troops charging out ouf a Landraider Assault ramp are all wearing Power Armour or Terminator Armour so they shouldn't have to worry about most things trying to shoot them anyway. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbienw Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The mini assembler did it wrong and mounted them at the back. They were designed for the front and the art is for the front. This is false. They are clearly designed to go in either front or back positions. There are multiple artworks for both positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 People complained about the Repulsor having too many guns at the top... But it makes a lot of sense!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Nah people complained about the Repulsor having to many guns. Period. I for one only complain about it having too many different guns. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 No 40k tank is practical. They're all too tall with the wrong kind of guns for their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommodusXIII Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 In 3rd edition it was better to have the doors at the front to give you extra inches to disembark. Likewise was modelling the front door open which gave an extra 1/4 inch deployment. More so than this - in earlier Editions, disembarking was limited to 2" from the door. If you have a full squad in a Land Raider, it was sometimes difficult to get everyone placed around the model and still maintain unit coherency. Especially if you're driving through dense terrain or near enemy models. Placing all of the exits near the front helped manage this bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Company Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 No 40k tank is practical. They're all too tall with the wrong kind of guns for their job. The Chimera is actually pretty decent so is the Rhino, heck so is the Razorback... Or do you mean full on battle tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Chaplain Kage Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Don't start that mess up again. Keep it on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The Chimera would be the most practically designed, but its still got the same problem as all imperial tanks - no suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sword Brother Adelard Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Of course, it is worth pointing out that if you use all of the parts in the kit, only one of the side doors is actually for disembarking. One is for the tool kit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Skeleton Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Well if we're going to talk about real life efficiency in this debate then sponsons shouldn't even be a thing, right? Sponsons are a real thing, they just fell out of favor during WW2 because increased armour meant vehicles were better with one very good gun rather than multiple guns and that gun was better off in a turret. Multiple turrets was tried and turned out to be a terrible idea, so its not impossible sponsons could come back if someone in the real world invented a light but powerful gun and an engine that could move them about on a single vehicle at a decent speed (which is a matter of efficiency I suppose). Its the weight that would make a real life land raider impossible not the actual implausibility of the sponsons. I think the Land Raider has suffered as a design for decades due to being based on a eighties sci fi inspired design, it has always been an odd beast. It used to be an either or, either you use it to tank hunt or as a dedicated transport so it used to sit at the back or go charging in. Obviously the Crusader changed this. Its based on a ww1 tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 A tanks most important weapons are its machine guns. That’s why every tank should have a mounted coaxial weapons, and a pintle mount or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Chaplain Kage Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Well if we're going to talk about real life efficiency in this debate then sponsons shouldn't even be a thing, right? Sponsons are a real thing, they just fell out of favor during WW2 because increased armour meant vehicles were better with one very good gun rather than multiple guns and that gun was better off in a turret. In their historical incarnation (a manned gun with an armored shield) they were also a glaring weakness in the side armor of a tank that could be easily exploited and that would hold true with anything from the IGuard. The remote controlled/Machine Spirit sponsons of the Astartes tanks being mounted outside the vehicle would get around that weakness but it's still an inefficient weapon setup for a supposedly elite force on the cutting edge of Imperium technology. With space magic, you can easily shape the fluff to say that a large, boxy, assault vehicle always gets the job done with its supposed 95mm (3.75 inches!) of armor protecting it from the worst weapons their enemies bring to bear, but it would be a terrible liability in a reality because physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The efficacy of the Raider's armor depends on more than just thickness, but also the composition and quality of the plate. An inch of mild steel is inferior to an inch of Chobham, for instance, and we don't have any hard figures on heat dissipation or hardness for ceramite or adamantium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Chaplain Kage Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 It's space magic. It's as powerful as they need it be in the situation regardless of any real physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Oh I'm aware. I was just pointing out the silliness of criticizing the thickness of the armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.