[FW] New Tau Battlesuits

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
news:ctehmo$qjq$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cte44u$86l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
> http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_NEW_STUFF__11.html
>>
>> Wow, FW managed to make the Tau battlesuits look halfway decent!
>
> These are pretty darn sexy. But if they're Forge World creations with
> rules
> in IA:3, they're probably not going to be official, which is a pain.

Only if you play in tournaments which don't allow FW stuff.

Rob
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>
> The more FW throws out, the more might make it into the next book - at the
> very
> least, FW support is usually followed by new Epic models and rules. The
> smart
> missile variant looks to be a nice anti-infantry HS choice. If I find I
> have
> some spare money in Australia, I might just get my Tau shipped out to me
> and
> augment them with Forge World Battlesuits (as well as Forge World
> Hammerhead
> turrets, Forge World Tetras, Forge World Piranhas...)

You fanboy.

Rob
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:360o7oF4re2orU1@individual.net...
> Robert Williams wrote:
>> http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_NEW_STUFF__11.html
>
> BTW, how come no commentary on the IG Bombard?
>
> I'm not entirely happy with it, but it's a very good effort.

Its not bad, but not good enough for me to buy one. I was a bit surprised
they based in on the first epic versions of the Bombard, rather than the
E:40K Bombard based on the Chimera hull.

Rob
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"P Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050128185313.00127.00000015@mb-m15.aol.com...
> In article <ctehmo$qjq$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
> <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:
>
> >"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cte44u$86l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_NEW_STUFF__11.html

> >> Wow, FW managed to make the Tau battlesuits look halfway decent!

> >These are pretty darn sexy. But if they're Forge World creations with
rules
> >in IA:3, they're probably not going to be official, which is a pain. Part
of
> >me wishes these had been saved for the next incarnation of the Tau Codex.

> The more FW throws out, the more might make it into the next book - at the
very
> least, FW support is usually followed by new Epic models and rules.

Perhaps, although I'm struggling to think of a previous example of an
unofficial Forge World-only creation subsequently being adopted into an
official 40K codex. The Vanquisher, possibly?

As my whole "Tau" army is converted, I don't even need the models for any
new stuff, I just want official rules for them!

> The smart
> missile variant looks to be a nice anti-infantry HS choice.

Yep. The heavy battlesuit with 4 weapon hardpoints was on my wishlist for
the next version of the Codex. Not neccessarily for the Commander, but it'll
do.

> If I find I have
> some spare money in Australia, I might just get my Tau shipped out to me
and
> augment them with Forge World Battlesuits (as well as Forge World
Hammerhead
> turrets, Forge World Tetras, Forge World Piranhas...)

What are you doing in Australia to have the money for all that, selling
human organs on the black market?

Tim
--
----------------
Criticizing the current administration is a treasonable offence!
The dept of "Homeland Security" has been informed of your
activities and will arrive shortly to pick you up. Please wrap
a towel around your head and stand out in front of your home
with a burning US flag so they can find you.
- smithdoer - Usenet out-take

www.rgmw.org - the RGMW FAQ, ignore at your peril!

Currently listening to: 'Glasnost' - Manic Street Preachers
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctgpag$rie$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
> news:ctehmo$qjq$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > "Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:cte44u$86l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_NEW_STUFF__11.html
> >>
> >> Wow, FW managed to make the Tau battlesuits look halfway decent!
> >
> > These are pretty darn sexy. But if they're Forge World creations with
> > rules
> > in IA:3, they're probably not going to be official, which is a pain.
>
> Only if you play in tournaments which don't allow FW stuff.

For the last few months I haven't played at all, so I suppose it makes
little real difference to me. But my old gaming group nearly always played
games that weren't pre-arranged, and the unspoken rule was that it was a bit
rude to turn up with unofficial stuff on the presumption your opponent would
say ok.

Considering that FW tanks have often just used the hopelessly flawed VDR
system for their stats and points, I don't have much faith in them as
rulemakers to make balanced rules (not that I have a massive amount of faith
in the GW writers either, but you get the point).

Tim
--
----------------
Criticizing the current administration is a treasonable offence!
The dept of "Homeland Security" has been informed of your
activities and will arrive shortly to pick you up. Please wrap
a towel around your head and stand out in front of your home
with a burning US flag so they can find you.
- smithdoer - Usenet out-take

www.rgmw.org - the RGMW FAQ, ignore at your peril!

Currently listening to: 'Fragments' - Manic Street Preachers
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <cth41f$qnk$2@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
<helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:

>For the last few months I haven't played at all, so I suppose it makes
>little real difference to me. But my old gaming group nearly always played
>games that weren't pre-arranged, and the unspoken rule was that it was a bit
>rude to turn up with unofficial stuff on the presumption your opponent would
>say ok.
>
>Considering that FW tanks have often just used the hopelessly flawed VDR
>system for their stats and points, I don't have much faith in them as
>rulemakers to make balanced rules (not that I have a massive amount of faith
>in the GW writers either, but you get the point).

But since VDR was unbalanced in favour of the player not using VDR vehicles,
that seems okay. However, FW seems to be making more use of player feedback
with its experimental rules - the Piranha and Tetra both became more effective
in their second incarnations.

Philip Bowles
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <cth41d$qnk$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
<helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:

>"P Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050128185313.00127.00000015@mb-m15.aol.com...
>> In article <ctehmo$qjq$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
>> <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:
>>
>> >"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:cte44u$86l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>
>>http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_NEW_STUFF__11.html
>
>> >> Wow, FW managed to make the Tau battlesuits look halfway decent!
>
>> >These are pretty darn sexy. But if they're Forge World creations with
>rules
>> >in IA:3, they're probably not going to be official, which is a pain. Part
>of
>> >me wishes these had been saved for the next incarnation of the Tau Codex.
>
>> The more FW throws out, the more might make it into the next book - at the
>very
>> least, FW support is usually followed by new Epic models and rules.
>
>Perhaps, although I'm struggling to think of a previous example of an
>unofficial Forge World-only creation subsequently being adopted into an
>official 40K codex. The Vanquisher, possibly?

Not sure whether the model came before or after the first IG Codex. The Ork
Squiggoth (and Gargantuan Squiggoth) and several IG Armoured Company units have
made it into White Dwarf/Annual lists, though. However, most armies Forge World
has produced models for in the past (IG, SM, Eldar, Chaos, Orks) are
long-established forces with a pretty comprehensive collection of units. On the
other hand the Tau are a newly-developed army with scope for expansion - when
time comes to redo their Codex GW may be looking around for extra wargear
options, light vehicles and the like to incorporate and find several ideas
fully-formed by Forge World. I really want to see the Tetra become official, I
must say.

>As my whole "Tau" army is converted,

From what? I'd say that's a shame, actually - having assembled and painted them
I'm firmly of the opinion that the Devilfish and Fire Warriors are among the
best figures GW produces for 40k.

>> The smart
>> missile variant looks to be a nice anti-infantry HS choice.
>
>Yep. The heavy battlesuit with 4 weapon hardpoints was on my wishlist for
>the next version of the Codex. Not neccessarily for the Commander, but it'll
>do.

Thing is it doesn't really suit the commander, since his Shas'vre bodyguard are
still going to want the mobility, unless they get the option too. Personally
I'd like to see the variants added to the wargear section (so Team Leaders and
Shas'vre can take them as well) - in addition to other upgrades a Battlesuit
could take one of the following: Hard-wired smart missile system with
multi-tracker (not available to Broadside Team Leaders/Shas'vre), hard-wired
markerlight with target lock or reinforced armour.

>> If I find I have
>> some spare money in Australia, I might just get my Tau shipped out to me
>and
>> augment them with Forge World Battlesuits (as well as Forge World
>Hammerhead
>> turrets, Forge World Tetras, Forge World Piranhas...)
>
>What are you doing in Australia to have the money for all that, selling
>human organs on the black market?

Hmm, that's an idea I hadn't thought of...

Philip Bowles
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

and the unspoken rule was that it was a bit
> rude to turn up with unofficial stuff on the presumption your opponent
> would
> say ok.

Forgeworld stuff is not "unofficial".

Rob
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"P Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050130052139.07099.00000064@mb-m29.aol.com...
> In article <cth41d$qnk$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
> <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:

> >> The more FW throws out, the more might make it into the next
> >> book - at the very least, FW support is usually followed by new
> >> Epic models and rules.
> >
> >Perhaps, although I'm struggling to think of a previous example of an
> >unofficial Forge World-only creation subsequently being adopted into an
> >official 40K codex. The Vanquisher, possibly?
>
> Not sure whether the model came before or after the first IG Codex.

I think the first Vanquisher type may have been before. There's a couple of
versions available now IIRC and at least one of those was released since.

> On the
> other hand the Tau are a newly-developed army with scope for expansion

I'd say they have a quite serious need for expansion for their next codex -
as it stands there's little room for specialisation as in a balanced army
you need to take a fairly fixed mixture of troops, suits and tanks. As I
recall you've seen the problems faced when trying to not use suits, as you
have to do without all but the barest minimum of heavy weaponry.

Its forgivable for the moment, as they are still in their early days, but
the army needs more options.

> - when
> time comes to redo their Codex GW may be looking around for extra wargear
> options, light vehicles and the like to incorporate and find several ideas
> fully-formed by Forge World. I really want to see the Tetra become
official, I
> must say.

We can hope. Plastic Tetras and Piranhas would be nice too.

> >As my whole "Tau" army is converted,
>
> From what? I'd say that's a shame, actually - having assembled and painted
them
> I'm firmly of the opinion that the Devilfish and Fire Warriors are among
the
> best figures GW produces for 40k.

Long story 🙂 . There are pics on the genbus group, the folder is named
Helicon One's Tau Conversions if you want to see them. Comments welcome 🙂.

> >> The smart
> >> missile variant looks to be a nice anti-infantry HS choice.
> >
> >Yep. The heavy battlesuit with 4 weapon hardpoints was on my wishlist for
> >the next version of the Codex. Not neccessarily for the Commander, but
it'll
> >do.
>
> Thing is it doesn't really suit the commander, since his Shas'vre
bodyguard are
> still going to want the mobility, unless they get the option too.

Although it is a pleasant change for a HQ choice to be super-shooty, rather
than tooled for combat like everyone else's leaders are. I hadn't noticed
the removal of the jetpack on that model, but that admittedly does make him
pretty vulnerable to return fire. Unless he had an option for 2 sets of twin
linked smart missile systems (ouch!) so that he didn't have to get LoS.

> Personally
> I'd like to see the variants added to the wargear section (so Team Leaders
and
> Shas'vre can take them as well) - in addition to other upgrades a
Battlesuit
> could take one of the following: Hard-wired smart missile system with
> multi-tracker (not available to Broadside Team Leaders/Shas'vre),
hard-wired
> markerlight with target lock or reinforced armour.

The markerlight would require allowing the suit to move and fire with heavy
weaponry, which it currently can't do, otherwise it wouldn't be used much.
I'd like a support system granting BS4, as much as anything so there is a
useful support system available for a suit equipped with twin linked
weapons. I also quite like the idea of a suit hardpoint holding 2-3 seeker
missiles. The idea of the seekers is Just Cool (tm) and different, and
should be expanded on in future.

> >> If I find I have
> >> some spare money in Australia, I might just get my Tau shipped out to
me
> >and
> >> augment them with Forge World Battlesuits (as well as Forge World
> >Hammerhead
> >> turrets, Forge World Tetras, Forge World Piranhas...)
> >
> >What are you doing in Australia to have the money for all that, selling
> >human organs on the black market?
>
> Hmm, that's an idea I hadn't thought of...

Fibber, I'm on to you....

Tim
--
----------------
Criticizing the current administration is a treasonable offence!
The dept of "Homeland Security" has been informed of your
activities and will arrive shortly to pick you up. Please wrap
a towel around your head and stand out in front of your home
with a burning US flag so they can find you.
- smithdoer - Usenet out-take

www.rgmw.org - the RGMW FAQ, ignore at your peril!

Currently listening to: 'My Beloved Monster' - Eels
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
news:ctjqsu$cpu$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "P Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20050130052139.07099.00000064@mb-m29.aol.com...
>> In article <cth41d$qnk$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Helicon_One"
>> <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> writes:
>
>> >As my whole "Tau" army is converted,
>>
>> From what? I'd say that's a shame, actually - having assembled and
>> painted
> them
>> I'm firmly of the opinion that the Devilfish and Fire Warriors are among
> the
>> best figures GW produces for 40k.
>
> Long story 🙂 . There are pics on the genbus group, the folder is named
> Helicon One's Tau Conversions if you want to see them. Comments welcome
> 🙂.

I'll be sure to have a look.

>> >> The smart
>> >> missile variant looks to be a nice anti-infantry HS choice.
>> >
>> >Yep. The heavy battlesuit with 4 weapon hardpoints was on my wishlist
>> >for
>> >the next version of the Codex. Not neccessarily for the Commander, but
> it'll
>> >do.
>>
>> Thing is it doesn't really suit the commander, since his Shas'vre
> bodyguard are
>> still going to want the mobility, unless they get the option too.
>
> Although it is a pleasant change for a HQ choice to be super-shooty,
> rather
> than tooled for combat like everyone else's leaders are. I hadn't noticed
> the removal of the jetpack on that model, but that admittedly does make
> him
> pretty vulnerable to return fire. Unless he had an option for 2 sets of
> twin
> linked smart missile systems (ouch!) so that he didn't have to get LoS.

Well, the jet pack does seem to have been removed but I was thinking more of
the fact that suits can't move and fire with a heavy weapon, and the SMS is
Heavy 4.

>> Personally
>> I'd like to see the variants added to the wargear section (so Team
>> Leaders
> and
>> Shas'vre can take them as well) - in addition to other upgrades a
> Battlesuit
>> could take one of the following: Hard-wired smart missile system with
>> multi-tracker (not available to Broadside Team Leaders/Shas'vre),
> hard-wired
>> markerlight with target lock or reinforced armour.
>
> The markerlight would require allowing the suit to move and fire with
> heavy
> weaponry, which it currently can't do, otherwise it wouldn't be used much.

As does the smart missile system.

Philip Bowles
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:360o7oF4re2orU1@individual.net...

> I'm not entirely happy with it, but it's a very good effort.

Agreed. For differnent reasons, however.

>The driver cab should be wider and set quite a bit more forward, with a
>more prominent cupola on top, and a Heavy Bolter on the front. The side
>engines are good, but ought to have had a bit larger vents to better
>parallell the Chimera. The rear spade is very well done, and definitely
>ooks the part.

None of this overly concerns me, as I'd be buying the Bombard for the gun,
and not the tank. It really is painful that it's not avaliable seperately.

>While the gun itself is exceptional, especially with the sliding breech,
>the superstructure and mounting leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Having no real knowledge of current military tank trends, the mount doesn't
bother me. It was, in fact, the sliding breech that annoyed me. Moving parts
on kits don't do much for me. Paint will constantly scratch, and FW resin
isn't the toughest of stuff.

> Also, the mechanical ammo loader is a bit out of place in 40k. That
> should be a Servitor's job!

That was my initial thought, too. Not to mention the above point again, that
FW resin on a component as thin as the servo arm is just asking for trouble.
What's worse, is it appears to rotate. More moving parts!

The Bombard is certainly on my list of kits to buy down the track, but it
will never be fielded on a tank. Something far larger, and far more
deserving.

--
Jon Hedge,
"The chances are, I said it in jest."

First time e-mails should be tagged [RGMW] to make it through my spam
filter.

RGMW FAQ @ http://www.rgmw.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3667hiF4s7nt7U1@individual.net...
>
> "Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
> news:ctjqsu$cpu$1@titan.btinternet.com...

> > Although it is a pleasant change for a HQ choice to be super-shooty,
> > rather
> > than tooled for combat like everyone else's leaders are. I hadn't
noticed
> > the removal of the jetpack on that model, but that admittedly does make
> > him
> > pretty vulnerable to return fire. Unless he had an option for 2 sets of
> > twin
> > linked smart missile systems (ouch!) so that he didn't have to get LoS.
>
> Well, the jet pack does seem to have been removed but I was thinking more
of
> the fact that suits can't move and fire with a heavy weapon, and the SMS
is
> Heavy 4.

Oh yeah! Forgot about that. With hindsight, considering the new Rapid Fire
rules mean that counting as stationary isn't the advantage it once was,
maybe the suits should be allowed to move and fire heavies as well. Possibly
not the Railgun though.

Saying that, here's a thought - Slow And Purposeful for the Broadside?

Tim
--
----------------
Criticizing the current administration is a treasonable offence!
The dept of "Homeland Security" has been informed of your
activities and will arrive shortly to pick you up. Please wrap
a towel around your head and stand out in front of your home
with a burning US flag so they can find you.
- smithdoer - Usenet out-take

www.rgmw.org - the RGMW FAQ, ignore at your peril!

Currently listening to: 'Oh Yeah' - The Subways
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> "Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote ...
>>Only if you play in tournaments which don't allow FW stuff.
>
> the unspoken rule was that it was a bit rude to turn up with unofficial
> stuff on the presumption your opponent would say ok.

Of course. However, as Forgeworld items are GW published, this isn't as
big of a deal.

And that's even ignoring the financial cost of buying the FW vehicle or
conversion kit, which isn't trivial.

> Considering that FW tanks have often just used the hopelessly flawed VDR
> system for their stats and points,

Indeed.

FW tanks are, practically without exception, clearly *less* efficient
than the Codex things they replace. I cannot think of a single FW
vehicle that I would prefer over its Codex counterpart in a standard
take-all-comers list. I can think of several FW vehicles that I
wouldn't take, ever.

Considering the vast number of FW Imperial releases, and that I play SM,
IG, and am assembling an IG AC, the fact that FW uses VDR doesn't bother me.

> I don't have much faith in them as rulemakers to make balanced rules

There's a very big difference between FW making rules for vehicles and
individuals making rules for vehicles. FW doesn't build vehicles to
spec that are maximally efficient. Players, OTOH, make extremely
efficient vehicles.

But to continue the discusssion, out of all the "standard" FW vehicles
in Imperial Armour, can you name even *one* vehicle that is not balanced
under 40k3 rules? How about under 40k4, which shifted the vehicle
balance about?


> (not that I have a massive amount of faith in
> the GW writers either, but you get the point).

Of course. I just think it's overblown.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Jon Hedge wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>I'm not entirely happy with it, but it's a very good effort.
>
> Agreed. For differnent reasons, however.

> None of this overly concerns me, as I'd be buying the Bombard for the gun,
> and not the tank. It really is painful that it's not avaliable seperately.

Um, why not order a Morser from Dragon / DML / Shanghai Dragon? You'd
save 30% on the cost and get a better-detailed gun.

>>While the gun itself is exceptional, especially with the sliding breech,
>>the superstructure and mounting leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
> Having no real knowledge of current military tank trends, the mount doesn't
> bother me. It was, in fact, the sliding breech that annoyed me. Moving parts
> on kits don't do much for me. Paint will constantly scratch, and FW resin
> isn't the toughest of stuff.

It's a nice detail for "posability". You have the option to model it
open or closed.

>>Also, the mechanical ammo loader is a bit out of place in 40k. That
>>should be a Servitor's job!
>
> That was my initial thought, too. Not to mention the above point again, that
> FW resin on a component as thin as the servo arm is just asking for trouble.
> What's worse, is it appears to rotate. More moving parts!

I wonder if you can transport it removed?

> The Bombard is certainly on my list of kits to buy down the track, but it
> will never be fielded on a tank. Something far larger, and far more
> deserving.

Again, check out the 1/35 Morser. It is a *very* big kit.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:368futF4t9uoqU1@individual.net...
> Doctor Rock wrote:

> > as well as a lot of self-propelled artillery like M107-style gun crates
> > (which are the closest analog to the bombard).
>
> OK, the Bombard may be a 600mm Morser. But on that chassis, it should
> still be fitted with a HB.

I think the idea is that there's no room for the heavy bolter mount and ammo
with the bombard's much bigger recoil dampeners and storage space.

> >>Also, it'd better match the other IG tanks...
> >
> > to be honest it looks more like assault artillery than the basilisk does
....
>
> I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
> L/43.

I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
myself.

> > but then I've always said the basilisk looks totally out of place on an
> > essentially skirmish-scale battlefield. it's clearly a bombardment gun,
not
> > an anti-tank cannon.
>
> The problem is that it is capable of high traverse and indirect fire.
> If the Basilisk were stripped of Indirect fire, and had the range cut
> down, it'd be much more sensible.

well then you'd be looking at a dedicated AT gun, when there's already the
destroyer used in that role. I have no problem with the basilisk as a unit,
only with the fact that it's consistently used in close-range skirmishes
where it's clearly inappropriate.

> But the Griffon is a mixed-metal (or now resin) kit that has actual
> production costs, unlike the all-plastic Basilisk that can basically be
> produced for FREE.

oh, I'm well aware of the economic considerations; I'm merely picking nits
from an aesthetic viewpoint.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote

>>I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
>>L/43.
>
>
> I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
> myself.

Nashorn and Hummel are essentially similar.

>>The problem is that it is capable of high traverse and indirect fire.
>>If the Basilisk were stripped of Indirect fire, and had the range cut
>>down, it'd be much more sensible.
>
> well then you'd be looking at a dedicated AT gun, when there's already the
> destroyer used in that role.

Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role. 🙁

Also, the Hunters book does general artillery better.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:05:18 -0800, John Hwang
<JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

>Jon Hedge wrote:
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>>I'm not entirely happy with it, but it's a very good effort.
>>
>> Agreed. For differnent reasons, however.
>
>> None of this overly concerns me, as I'd be buying the Bombard for the gun,
>> and not the tank. It really is painful that it's not avaliable seperately.
>
>Um, why not order a Morser from Dragon / DML / Shanghai Dragon? You'd
>save 30% on the cost and get a better-detailed gun.
>
>>>While the gun itself is exceptional, especially with the sliding breech,
>>>the superstructure and mounting leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>>
>> Having no real knowledge of current military tank trends, the mount doesn't
>> bother me. It was, in fact, the sliding breech that annoyed me. Moving parts
>> on kits don't do much for me. Paint will constantly scratch, and FW resin
>> isn't the toughest of stuff.
>
>It's a nice detail for "posability". You have the option to model it
>open or closed.
>
>>>Also, the mechanical ammo loader is a bit out of place in 40k. That
>>>should be a Servitor's job!
>>
>> That was my initial thought, too. Not to mention the above point again, that
>> FW resin on a component as thin as the servo arm is just asking for trouble.
>> What's worse, is it appears to rotate. More moving parts!
>
>I wonder if you can transport it removed?
>
>> The Bombard is certainly on my list of kits to buy down the track, but it
>> will never be fielded on a tank. Something far larger, and far more
>> deserving.
>
>Again, check out the 1/35 Morser. It is a *very* big kit.

Well, if this is the one you're taking about:
http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/reviews/kit/kit_tru_morser.shtml

Whoa!

--sugarman--
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

sugarman wrote:
> John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote:

>>Um, why not order a Morser from Dragon / DML / Shanghai Dragon? You'd
>>save 30% on the cost and get a better-detailed gun.

>>>The Bombard is certainly on my list of kits to buy down the track, but it
>>>will never be fielded on a tank. Something far larger, and far more
>>>deserving.
>>
>>Again, check out the 1/35 Morser. It is a *very* big kit.
>
> Well, if this is the one you're taking about:
> http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/reviews/kit/kit_tru_morser.shtml

Pretty much. It's the Trumpeter version, rather than the Dragon
version, but either one works just fine.

> Whoa!

Yup. The 1/35 scale model is about 14" long. For comparison, a Chimera
is only 5" long.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:36b64gF4tnv9nU2@individual.net...
> Doctor Rock wrote:
> > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote
>
> >>I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
> >>L/43.
> >
> >
> > I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
> > myself.
>
> Nashorn and Hummel are essentially similar.

well, in that they were both based on a panzer IV hull, I guess. but the
nashorn was a dedicated tank destroyer whereas the hummel was heavy
artillery. the fact that there's no such distinction with the basilisk is
my main problem with it.

> >>The problem is that it is capable of high traverse and indirect fire.
> >>If the Basilisk were stripped of Indirect fire, and had the range cut
> >>down, it'd be much more sensible.
> >
> > well then you'd be looking at a dedicated AT gun, when there's already
the
> > destroyer used in that role.
>
> Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role.
🙁

it's much better with the IA rules - S10 hitting on a 4+ - although still
too expensive to be viable as a competitive unit rather than a FW
peccadillo.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>>>I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
>>>>L/43.
>>>
>>>I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
>>>myself.
>>
>>Nashorn and Hummel are essentially similar.
>
> well, in that they were both based on a panzer IV hull, I guess.

Well, that's kind of a low bar for the match. You wouldn't toss in the
Whirbelwind and Brummbar, despite the matched hull.

Nashorn and Hummel share the same superstructure and gun mounting, just
differing in the gun.

> nashorn was a dedicated tank destroyer whereas the hummel was heavy
> artillery. the fact that there's no such distinction with the
> basilisk is my main problem with it.

Yup, and I'd rather see the Basilisk pushed closer to the TD role than
artillery. 40k Artillery is handled via Preliminary Bombardment or WH /
DH Orbital Bombardment.

>>Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role.
>
> 🙁
>
> it's much better with the IA rules - S10 hitting on a 4+ -

Huh? My IA book has it as a Long Blast Lascannon (72" S9 AP2 Blast).

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:36dmokF504g47U1@individual.net...
> Doctor Rock wrote:
> > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
> >>>>I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
> >>>>L/43.
> >>>
> >>>I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
> >>>myself.
> >>
> >>Nashorn and Hummel are essentially similar.
> >
> > well, in that they were both based on a panzer IV hull, I guess.
>
> Well, that's kind of a low bar for the match. You wouldn't toss in the
> Whirbelwind and Brummbar, despite the matched hull.
>
> Nashorn and Hummel share the same superstructure and gun mounting, just
> differing in the gun.

I thought they took out all the hybridized III/IV parts for the nashorn, at
least officially.

> > nashorn was a dedicated tank destroyer whereas the hummel was heavy
> > artillery. the fact that there's no such distinction with the
> > basilisk is my main problem with it.
>
> Yup, and I'd rather see the Basilisk pushed closer to the TD role than
> artillery. 40k Artillery is handled via Preliminary Bombardment or WH /
> DH Orbital Bombardment.

oh, I don't have a problem with assault artillery per se - my only point is
that the basilisk is clearly not assault artillery.

> >>Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role.
> >
> > 🙁
> >
> > it's much better with the IA rules - S10 hitting on a 4+ -
>
> Huh? My IA book has it as a Long Blast Lascannon (72" S9 AP2 Blast).

did you buy the first book? it's never a good idea to buy any literature
until they've had a chance to fix the most glaring inconsistences and
mistakes 😛

the new laser destroyer is 72" S10 AP2, ordnance damage. still pretty
feeble compared to a vanquisher, but not wholly pointless anymore.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> >>Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role.
> >
> > 🙁
> >
> > it's much better with the IA rules - S10 hitting on a 4+ -
>
> Huh? My IA book has it as a Long Blast Lascannon (72" S9 AP2 Blast).

I'm pretty sure it's S10 in the WD armoured company list.

Brad

--
Don't bother with the yahoo address - I never read it.
bjhann at hotkey dot net dot au
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Helicon_One wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>>True. Forgeworld mostly serves as a source of inspiration for my own
>>>conversions, rather than something to buy myself.
>>
>>Same.
>
> Drop troops have just gone on the 'stuff to convert' list. If only FW did
> bitz orders.

If only I could get more IG size-matched to my Tallarns...

>>>For them to release a book consisting of vehicles I could have
>>>just VDR'd myself was pure laziness, even if the pics were nice.
>>
>>But this is what makes the models playable, as they're basically minor
>>variations on what we already have.
>
> Except they're not! A VDR'd Rhino or Russ doesn't come out anything
> like the points cost of the official model, so VDR'ing the original
> with a different gun just produces a bloated cost. Any fool could have
> looked at the Executioner and worked out that a plasma cannon with a bit
> extra range was worth a few less points than the battlecannon and priced
> it accordingly, and they'd have had a sensibly balanced tank.

The points cost premium covers two things: Rarity and Specialization.
An Executioner isn't standard issue, so it costs more to procure.

>>>IG AC? Ewwww.
>>
>>Pshaw. It's just a bunch of tanks. The new WD AC rules are actually
>>pretty close to being balanced. Or rather, they're not obviously
>>unfair, which is about the most one could expect from GW.
>
> Its not the tanks themselves that are the problem, its all the
> battlecannons, especially now they're move and fire.

OTOH, they lost the solidity of Hull Down, and AP1 Glancing which makes
a pretty big difference.

The WD AC is taxed about 5% with the increased HQ and Elite cost. If it
were upped to 7% with slightly more restrictions, or 8-10% as it
currently sits, I'd consider it truly fair.

>>>VDR, fluffy vehicles built without playing the system were
>>>punishingly overpriced, whilst any cheesehead could build 100 bolters
>>>onto an AV14/10/10 warmachine, chuck a forcefield in, point it at
>>>the enemy, and laugh as it chewed everything up.
>>
>>That's OK, but Warmachines with multiple Ordnance are better... :)
>
> You're a bad bad man. 😛

If they give me an open build system, who am I to refuse it? :)

>>>Under 4th Ed, where Ordnance weapons have been massively upgraded by the
>>>move-and-fire ability, swapping your battlecannon or demolisher cannon
>>>for something else makes even less sense.
>>
>>Yup. And that's why people will generally allow them. :)
>
> But I'm as reluctant to play against an overpriced tank as I would be
> against an underpriced tank. If I win its a devalued result, because my
> list was worth more in real terms - I may as well have just played the
> game with a bigger points value than my opponent.

When you're talking about 20 pts in an 1500 pt or 1850 pt game, I hardly
think 1-2% is the sort of margin that would radically swing a game into
being devalued. The luck of the dice alone will have a bigger impact
than the "wasted" 20 pts.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Doctor Rock wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:36dmokF504g47U1@individual.net...
>
>>Doctor Rock wrote:
>>
>>>"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>
>>>>>>I've always seen the Basilisk as a stand-in for a Nashorn with an 88mm
>>>>>>L/43.
>>>>>
>>>>>I always saw it as an pretty direct analog for the Hummel and/or M40,
>>>>>myself.
>>>>
>>>>Nashorn and Hummel are essentially similar.
>>>
>>>well, in that they were both based on a panzer IV hull, I guess.
>>
>>Well, that's kind of a low bar for the match. You wouldn't toss in the
>>Whirbelwind and Brummbar, despite the matched hull.
>>
>>Nashorn and Hummel share the same superstructure and gun mounting, just
>>differing in the gun.
>
>
> I thought they took out all the hybridized III/IV parts for the nashorn, at
> least officially.
>
>
>>>nashorn was a dedicated tank destroyer whereas the hummel was heavy
>>>artillery. the fact that there's no such distinction with the
>>>basilisk is my main problem with it.
>>
>>Yup, and I'd rather see the Basilisk pushed closer to the TD role than
>>artillery. 40k Artillery is handled via Preliminary Bombardment or WH /
>>DH Orbital Bombardment.
>
>
> oh, I don't have a problem with assault artillery per se - my only point is
> that the basilisk is clearly not assault artillery.
>
>
>>>>Except the Destroyer isn't even as good as the basic Russ in an AT role.

>>>it's much better with the IA rules - S10 hitting on a 4+ -
>>
>>Huh? My IA book has it as a Long Blast Lascannon (72" S9 AP2 Blast).
>
> did you buy the first book?

Yes.

> it's never a good idea to buy any literature until they've had a
> chance to fix the most glaring inconsistences and mistakes 😛

Hmm... Buy IA1 on clearance, or wait a few years for the expensive
compilation... Hmm... Nah.

> the new laser destroyer is 72" S10 AP2, ordnance damage.

That's what the original AB version stated, but was corrected back to
72" S9 AP2 Blast.

> still pretty feeble compared to a vanquisher,

If correct, Destroyer becomes the best tank in the game, combining the
best gun (S10 AP2 Ordnance) with 72" range. I would take as many as
possible.

Compared with a Vanquisher which has average AP of 15, the a Demolisher
has an average AP of "only" about 14.5. Being able to roll scatter
instead of to-hit is well worth giving up 0.5pt of AP. Plus there's the
occasional Monolith...


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
news:ctue8e$qaj$2@titan.btinternet.com...
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:36dm8cF4uhcijU1@individual.net...
>> Helicon_One wrote:
>> > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>>
>> >>Of course. However, as Forgeworld items are GW published, this isn't
>> >>as
>> >>big of a deal.
>> >
>> > To be honest, I'm not sure on the standing of the Forgeworld books, I'd
>> > assumed they had the same sort of unofficial status as some Chapter
> Approved
>> > articles, or old Citadel Journal creations.
>
>> Generally, people allow them for anything except official GW events.
>> The big exceptions being Flyers and Superheavies, which tend to require
>> permission.
>>
>> They're either the unofficial official rules, or the official unofficial
>> rules. 😉
>
> See my reply to Phil.
>
>> >>And that's even ignoring the financial cost of buying the FW vehicle or
>> >>conversion kit, which isn't trivial.
>> >
>> > True. Forgeworld mostly serves as a source of inspiration for my own
>> > conversions, rather than something to buy myself.
>>
>> Same.
>
> Drop troops have just gone on the 'stuff to convert' list. If only FW did
> bitz orders.

I asked them about the possibility of Battlesuit conversion kits, and was
told "no, because they're uneconomical" - which I frankly doubt. I imagine
there are a lot of people with plastic suits who'd pay £8 to improve them
but who wouldn't pay £18 for the full model with extra plastics they don't
need.

With the Drop Troops, what FW has done is set the precedent - now, if and
when GW ever revisits the idea and makes its own models, they'll have an
existing template to work from. I can't imagine anyone at FW seriously
thinks anyone bar Rob Williams would buy an army of Elysians at their
prices. At least they're similar enough to Cadians to be convertable.

Philip Bowles