>I guess I should take a step back and ask why Land Train battlecars are so
much better than Hellworm Battlecars. I'd like to make them equal and have
the major difference being how they move across the battlefield. Some of the
Hellworm battlecars would be useful to a Land Train and vice-versa, and I
don't see Squats saying "No, we can't build a flamethrower (Dragon
Battlecar) into a Hellworm Battlecar."
--> Well I finally looked over unit final summary of stats and I've been
quite disapointed. When Hellworm battlecars were 'normalized' with Land
Train battlecars, they lost half their point defense weapons, the cannon
battlecar lost half its lascannons and all heavy bolters and two thirds of
the point defense weapons, and carrier battlecar lost half its hvy bolters
and the ability to use half their power when closed. Some stats were aready
lost in v5A, which I did not notice. My fault not checking before. I think
original stats should be restored (The only change discussed in the list in
three years was the engine flamethrower being changed to a melta cannon
instead of acid based, which was agreed by everyone). Original stats as
designed and first discussed (long ago, maybe 2001 or 2002) can be found in:
http://www.netepic.org/EZINE/files/pdfI006.pdf
It's true some battlecars could be very tempting to add to Hellworm, but
they just don't fit their purpose of close support for tunneling companies*.
If people agree, HW barrage battlecar can be substituted by a dragon
battlecar, but no Iron eagle, skyhammer or bomb since they don't fit its
role, nor berzerker, which is clearly inferior to carrier. On the other
side, LT does not have secondary engines to carry HW battlecars (which are
bigger, heavier and more expensive).
Hellworm was not designed to be a land train variant. It just adapted the
idea of 'convoy' unit for a VERY different purpose: a expensive support unit
for deep strike and siege missions where tunnelers were to be used. Capitol
Imperialis and Leviathans have a lot of similarities, but that doesn't mean
they have to have the same entry. They have different personality, aims and
costs, and thus two separate entries. I think there is no other unit being
mixed with another in any other book. Not even Leman Russ thousand weapon
configurations.
*With just one exception: the barrage battlecar. It may be discussed its
fluff in this kind of vehicle and probably it is inconsistent with the
purpose of the vehicle, but if it weren't there, it would be inconsistent
with squat big vehicles having big barrage weapons :D
>Also, the ability of the LT cars to move when separated from the Engine has
baffled me. They can move on their own if across the board from the Engine,
but not if the Engine's been destroyed? That doesn't make sense. I'd like
all battlecars to depend on the Engine for movement, which gives the
Secondary Engine something to do.
Third, why can the Hellworm take 15 battlecars the the Land Train's only 6?
Isn't it easier to pull things over land than through it?
--> I don't know why it was rewriten the rule that secondary engines have
anything to do apart from giving void shields and being a burden. In the
original ruling (in incoming 6 and the post I send somewhere around mid june
03) this ability was not given. The only aim of secondary engine battlecars
is provide additional traction to move more battlecars. Probably it was my
fault to not specify enough the 'burden' role of secondary engines. Each 3
battlecars includes one secondary engine. Only the segment linked with
Engine and fuel (which is the very first wagon after the engine) can move.
>Finally, given that the Hellworm only moves 15 cm a turn, how many
battlecars can it pull out of the ground each turn? All of them erupting out
of the ground at once in one turn is just a little perposterous if it only
inches forward after that. I'd like to allow, say, itself and the first 3
cars out of the ground on the first turn and 4 the second (assuming we limit
the HW to 7 battlecars).
-->Well, this was pointed out some time ago, but I cannot give you an
answer. I suppose it is under the same reasons you can fit twenty Leman Russ
Tanks in a Capitol imperialis (you can hardly fit four minis after taking
out the side weapons), or a full infantry company can be deployed from a
leviathan in just one turn with the same movement penalization (there's
reasonable doubt that he last stand who had to wait more time to get out had
the same movement allowance -or none at all- than the first). This is not
ASL and I guess we'll just have to suppose everything gets out really fast
and its move is impedded over land due to lack of hooking or wathever... I
could check a GW rulebook and choose a random silly excuse for not having a
nice rule, but I think we judt should keep it simple this time.
>Ok, no Orks or Chaos. I think Chaos Squats are from Warhammer Fantasy, and
never made it to 40K. Except for Mat Birdoff's Chaos Squats army, which is
worth looking at:
http://www.warmongerclub.com/articles/chaossquats1.html
-->Actually they exist as a support card for Chaos. But they don't have
anything to do with WH Chaos babilonian/assyrian/wathever-based Dwarfs. I
have three or four really-old WH40k Chaos squats and are more like chaos
versions of squats in the same sense that Caos SM are vrsions of SM. But I
keep the idea of a Chaos Squat Army for a later time.
>No, it doesn't. Squats Army Book version 5.A states: "Rams can "roll over"
infantry, bikes and walkers. When moving, infantry stands in the Ram's path
are hit on 5+, bike or walker stands are hit on a 4+, and only fixed saves
may be attempted."
We can make it [-4 TSM, doubled vs structurses] or something horrendus like
that, but I don't agree with abolishing fixed saves.
--> I think we got some big confusion here. My pledge was to NOT abolish
fixed save against runovers, since in v5A it was explicited but in v5beta
not. I think fixed saves should stay. Beta text says:
Rams can move along the surface and attempt to crush infantry, cavalry and
walker-class units in their way. Move the Ram and roll a die as each unit is
encountered and on a 4+ it's killed, otherwise it moves aside and the Ram
continues. Models moved do not lose their actions (such as with the Eldar
Wave Serpent).
I suppose it is somewhere in core rules stated that runovers do not forbid
fixed saves and I didn't read it. That's all.
>Where is the Ram from origionly? I did a quick search of the Yahoo messages
but couldn't find it.
-->Somewhere mid june 2003 in a post called 'squat vehicles *something*' and
following threads.
>As a separate topic, I'd like to propose the following:
If a Ram wins combat against a superheavy or larger opponent it inflicts D6
hits to random bottom locations (wheel, leg, track, etc). If the target has
the Agile ability it is only hit once.
This removes the "The model has legs" "It doesn't say legs on the chart"
arguement, and makes Agile a little more worthwhile. Warhounds Rule!
-Yar
---> Well, that means a sure kill for anything but a gargant or an
imperator, mot of the time. I would leave D6 for three or more lower
locations (gargants, lord of battles,...), D3 for two locations (each leg)
and 1 if agile. These way there's a chance to survive.
Albert
Received on Mon Apr 18 2005 - 22:05:32 UTC