The Chimera has been the hot topic of much debate lately, so it is high time someone started a topic addressing the poor thing!

Objective : Making the Chimera a more objective vehicle. Expanding it's role. Developing Varients.

One : The Chimera suffers from poor side armor. Yes, it has AV12 on the front, but it has AV10 on the sides, for a transport, this is unacceptable, especially for the Guard. AV12 is reasonable enough for the side armor.

Two : Points value. Really, 70pts for a transport? Then add weapons?! Some people abdicate 35pts. This is sort of ridiculous as well, in my opinion. The 45-55pt range plus reduced weapons cost seems reasonable.

Three : A whole Chimera for a Command Squad is a bit over-kill. Since Transports can now carry any unit after deployment, this has been improved a bit, however some sort of Razorback version of the Chimera. Pop on a second bigger turret with twin-linked weapons at appropriate points value makes sense. Base cost stays the same, value the additional turret accordingly to compensate for the lost troop capacity (lose, say, 4 or 5 slots for the turret?).

Four : Hellhound. Keep it as is or boost that front armor to AV13! The Hellhound was possibly the only undisputable improvement in the IG codex from the previous edition, let's not lose it!

H-Vets were an improvement as well. They weren't worth the paper they were printed on in the previous 'Dex.


I could live with the Chimera being AV12/11/10 - it just needs to be more than AV10 on the sides. And the points cost is stupid. 70 for no guns? What? 40 points without weapons, 5 for the turret and hull mount, 10 if you want an AC (it's worth +5 points because of the +12" of range over the Multi-Laser).


Sadly GW isn't doing that, as the new Chimera is, AV12/10/10, Multi-Laser, Heavy Bolter, Searchlight and Smoke for 45 points. Extra Armour is a wonderfully low 15 points to ensure you never take it. I can see the Autocannon turret being 20 points because they don't know what they're doing.

BYE

I think the solution to the side armor is one that people have proposed before: a vehicle upgrade, pay 10-20pts for the extra side armor. Its not ridiculous, though it is a little unprecedented.

I think the 45pts is fair. The game breaker is what the different weapon upgrades cost.

I think there should be a command version of the chimera, something like the chimedon, but trading off the unnecessary transport space for a bigger turret weapon. Maybe not a battle cannon, but maybe something lighter like a Conqueror cannon, or twin-linked autocannons. A twin-linked autocannon should be 1.5 times the the single autocannon. I think if we went the route of something like the conqueror it'd be in the 15-20pt range. It should also come with improved comms.

Cannon on the Chimera? That's a bit over the top?

I picked AV12-12-10 to line it up with the Hellhound (which could use a new model).

45+ weapons seems fair. AV10 sides is rather silly, but whatever.

Not to get off topic too much, but I hope this drop would carry over to Sentinels. 45pts for a multilaser sentinel that can no longer cap objectives is one of the biggest waste of points imo.
These little guys need to have a nice point drop (ideally 30pts w/ a multilaser).

Sentinels should be 15-20 points + weapons. They're not worth any more...

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Sentinels should be 15-20 points + weapons. They're not worth any more...

BYE

I agree, if a 11-20 pt model can take it out with one lucky shot with a bolter, it has no buiseness costing twice as much before upgrades.

And the only problem with the chimera as far as I can tell is that it's overpriced, but more options are always cool.

H.B.M.C. wrote:


Sadly GW isn't doing that, as the new Chimera is, AV12/10/10, Multi-Laser, Heavy Bolter, Searchlight and Smoke for 45 points. Extra Armour is a wonderfully low 15 points to ensure you never take it. I can see the Autocannon turret being 20 points because they don't know what they're doing.

BYE

You speak like you have information HBMC. Sourcing for the statement my man?

It's from the new IA book if I remember, it's somewhere in the news and rumors.

Thanks Dexy.

If so the 45 point price nice but I would prefer multiple weapon options: twin linked heavy bolters, autocannon, mayhaops a missile launcher option or even twin linked heavy stubbers so it could move and shoot. I loved my old twin liked heavy bolters.

Perhaps a firing platform would be an elegant solution to this. Allow one or two models to fire out of the vehicle while counting as open topped, but the models do not count as having moved. You could stick whatever heavy weapon you want in there to add the firepower.

Bah, I would just be happy with a clear ruling on the bolt on lasguns, or at least some way of shooting all 6 of them at one time. Come on, they are LASGUNS! its not like I am asking to shoot 6 plasma shots at something.

Skinnattittar wrote:Cannon on the Chimera? That's a bit over the top?

I picked AV12-12-10 to line it up with the Hellhound (which could use a new model).

Seriously? I did say conqueror cannon... you know... the baby brother of the battle cannon... the small fry small templeted autocannon equivalent cannon. In the realm of tank weapons, a plasma cannnon is more devastating than a conqueror cannon. You hit what 4 enemies on average, its like having two autocannons, thats all. Only advantage is it allows more move and shoot. There is precedent for a cannon on a chimera, chimedon had a battle cannon and the full 10 transport; at least it actually makes more sense for it to lose transport space to accommodate a larger weapon. It would only be for command squads, so you'd see only a few at close coming in at 75pts.

Chimerax would also be neat with quad autocannons, that would class in at the same as the chimedon.

Frazzled wrote:You speak like you have information HBMC. Sourcing for the statement my man?

It's acually more of a well-informed and educated guess.

Forgeworld released an FAQ (yeah, they actually do that, unlike their parent body) for Imperial Armour 2 in order to update it with the new Marine Codex. Included in this was an update to the Inquisitorial Chimera. It was, as I said, 45 points for an AV12/10/10 tank with 12-transport capacity, a Multi-Laser, hull HB, Smoke, Searchlight, and two special rules that we haven't heard of yet. Now, that could mean anything, or it could mean nothing, but I like to look at the history with FW and how their rules come about:

1. Now I know I say this all the time, but it is true - Warwick is the master of Copy/Paste. So many rules (and so many mistakes) are repeated throughout all the IA books. His love affair with CopyPaste is the reason why the Deathrider Apoc Formation in IA Apocalypse has no special rules. It just costs points for... nothing. He just copied the base-line formation template and forgot to add anything. The copypaste this is important because...
2. FW gets their ques from the main GW Dev Team. When IA1 came out, we were treated to what the Imperial Guard Codex was going to look like. IA6 gave us a brief look at what the Marine Codex (specifically the Tactical Squad entry) was going to look like - all a month or so before the actual Marine Codex came out. In other words, if an IA book comes out soon before or soon after a major Codex release, chances are its rules are going to match the main release because Warwick has copypasted the GW rules into his book.

Therefore, when the IA2FAQ came out, and we had a bunch of rules updated to match the new Marine Codex, it made sense then that the Chimera rules presented there would become the Chimera rules presented in the new Guard Codex, something we know they are currently working on.

So that's my logic. Do I know that the rules in the IA2FAQ are the new Chimera rules? Not at all. Am I pretty sure of it though? Absolutley.

BYE

for a command chimera, the extra dakka for less space is all well and good, but how about a massive comm array? like a 24" radius leadership boost? This for extra points of course.

I've just never believed in having command squads that go in and kick @$$, just my prejudice though

I think that sort of command and control chimera would be cool, but it does strike me as something you'd see further in the rear of an IG formation than in the front. The imperium, is the sort of universe where those who survive are "protected" by the emperor, that honor means they can be trusted with rarer and more deadly weapons to wage war with against the emperors enemies. That is the rational that defines why the type of hierarchy of war gear exists with in the imperium. Silly, I know, but to a space marine our military would probably seem just as ill concieved.

How about keeping its AV10 sides but make it open topped with 2 heavy bolter's fired by passengers where the lasguns usaly go but can also shoot forwards.

The idea comes from the Vietnam war when troops sat on top of APCs and welded some more dakka to them.

glowgos wrote:How about keeping its AV10 sides but make it open topped with 2 heavy bolter's fired by passengers where the lasguns usaly go but can also shoot forwards.

The problem here is that the chimera is an IFV, not an APC. It's almost a tank, and needs tank-like armor, not bolter-magnet sentinel armor.

and you can already fire a weapon from the hatch above the troop compartment, then add a pintle weapon. All this and you keep the "sidelights"

glowgos, I think it would be cool to see some sort of "transported units don't count as moving if the vehicles moves less than 6" for the purpose of troops shooting," its just unlikely.

I'm just going to point out that IFV's come in varying levels of armor. The M3 Bradley for examples, is what most people think of when you say IFV but the production model was relatively under armored. It had the same amount of armor as a M113. It took an up-armor kit to improve its survivability, in 40k we'd call it "Extra Armor". Maybe just having that come standard on chimeras could be a bandage on the problem, though I know its hardly a solution. I still think a +1 armor to sides should be a vehicle upgrade.

The chimera is considerably thicker than any Bradley. I'll clear up what I meant, though.
The chimera is an IFV, but nearly a tank, so it deserves more armor. 11 on the sides sounds fine, just thick enough to repel boltgun rounds, but wont reliably stop anything bigger, as it isn't a true tank.

I'm not trying to berate you, just playing devils advocate. The bolter is suppose to be firing, .75 cal or 19mm shells. A modern IFV such as the Bradley would get beat up by a bolter, even with a bolter conceived of modern technology. With some of the more heavily armored IFV out there, few as they are, they can take a 30mm shell. So it is reasonable to say Imperium technology even at a minimal capacity could resist such a thing, but would the imperium make it standard issue? That idk.

The question is should the Chimera represent the most armored of IFV the lightest of IFV or something in between? Armor 11 makes it a heavy IFV, while armor 10 makes it light. My sentiment is it should be somewhere in between.

That all makes perfect sense, but then add this:
the Bradleys treads are roughly underneath it, whereas the chimeras are on the sides, putting that much more materiel inbetween oncoming fire, and the hull, thats why I see Av11 perfectly reasonable. An attack that glances the side (i.e. rolled 11) wont penetrate the hull (no wrecked or explode! roll) but punched a hole in the track mechanism, and may roll for an immobilized result.
that's how I see it...

Not to be a gloomy Guss, but with a layout such as the chimeras where do you think they'd store the fuel? Possibly in those nice large areas near the engines where personnel couldn't utilize the space?

Yeah, you're right (again, HURR!), but I still think there's enough plating to warrant Av11 on the sides.

I would think AV11 sides is perfectly reasonable considering the Hellhound somehow is able to bump it up to AV12 *and* add large quantities of highly volatile liquid.

But I imagine you would have a lot of SM players crying about the Rhino needing thicker armor...

They can keep it AV10 and just lower the price a good chunk and i will be a happy guardsman.

I'd be happy with getting any bone thrown to my poor chimeras. I'm just looking at what I think to be a best case senario.

I've always thought of it this way Chimeras only have decednt armor on the front because thats the only direction Imperial Commanders want their troops to go, forward!

I don't think its unreasonable for Chimeras to have better armor on the side, I just think its the sort of thing that wouldn't neccisarily be standard on all chimeras.

Everyones been talking about turret weapons, but how about the hull weapon, is there some way that could be improved? Allow a heavy stubber maybe?

Um.... Heavy Stubbers have inferior characteristic compared to Heavy Bolters.... Just, you know, putting that out there... Never heard anyone complain about the Heavy Bolter being too good or anything.... maybe make it HB/HF standard, considering those are the only two options... Make it free, comes with the tank. The turret weapon is pretty docile, in my opinion. I've never found a use for the Multi-laser over the HB, but some people like it. It would also be nice to see an autocannon as an option, though I think a Lascannon is a bit ambitious, though given that the IG has near zero flexibility, it shouldn't be outlandish. That's really the Imperial Guard's problem, though; no flexibility.

I just meant it'd be interesting to see some other weapon options for the hull mount. HS was just one thought, how about a multi-melta or something... not really IG but we're just tossing ideas around.

I suggest Heavy Bolter and/or Heavy Flamer (some people find them useful as a hull mount? I've never actually seen them used as a hull mount). Multi-melta isn't really guard, but a regular melta would be okay (hey, logistically, why not?).

Hull mounted grenade launcher... IG should get a full auto grenade launcher like the Mk19 the US marines have.

Heavy stubber counts as defensive, that way you can move 6" and fire everything.

and I view the multi-las as superior to the HB.
Looking at the rulebook, most saves are going to be 3+ (HB still gives a save) or 6+ (ML cuts through anyway)
So why not wound easier?

I like the heavy bolter against anything less than MEQs. Example: Orks are really bad axed right now and the HB would cut through the 4+ of heavy armor that ard boyz and nobz that have choosen that upgrade all have. You could concentrate stubber fire on lesser units, but those could also be handled by lasguns.

thalor

aka_mythos wrote:I think the solution to the side armor is one that people have proposed before: a vehicle upgrade, pay 10-20pts for the extra side armor.

I think the 45pts is fair. The game breaker is what the different weapon upgrades cost.

I think there should be a command version of the chimera, something like the chimedon, but trading off the unnecessary transport space for a bigger turret weapon. Maybe not a battle cannon, but maybe something lighter like a Conqueror cannon, or twin-linked autocannons. A twin-linked autocannon should be 1.5 times the the single autocannon. I think if we went the route of something like the conqueror it'd be in the 15-20pt range. It should also come with improved comms.

At 10-20 pts, you overprice side armor - if you charge 20 pts, for the price of 2 up-armored Chimeras, you can get another Chimera, which transports a 3rd unit, has 2 more guns, etc. so the cost of AV11 side should be +5 pts per Chimera. The only caveat is that you must buy the upgrade for *all* Chimeras. No shell games of guessing which Chimera has base armor on sides vs improved armor!

With Razorbacks weighing in at 40 pts, 45 pts is as high as one can reasonably charge for a Chimera that includes basic hull and turret HB/HF-class guns.

Command Chimera makes good sense and is a good differentiator, with Transport 6 and enhanced weapons options. A (single, BS4) Autocannon, ML, or twin HB would be good choices for +5 pts.

Conqueror would be an interesting choice, but definitely cost more, maybe +25 pts.

aka_mythos wrote:chimedon had a battle cannon and the full 10 transport;

Chimerax would also be neat with quad autocannons, that would class in at the same as the chimedon.

Full Battlecannon today isn't justifiable.

Twin or quad autocannon starts to intrude on the Pred or Hydra, respectively, so should be avoided.

aka_mythos wrote:I still think a +1 armor to sides should be a vehicle upgrade.

Realistically, let's not bother with the AV11 step. It's kind of like charging +2 pts per model for Lasguns to be AP5. It's such a minor change, and does so little of what you *really* want, don't bother. If we're charging for improved side armor to support enhanced mobility, then go all the way to AV12 sides (like a Hellhound) for +10 pts per Chimera, recognizing that the Chimera gives up at least half of its shooting when moving to use its AV12 sides. Make the change significant and clearly playable at a points cost that makes sense.

aka_mythos wrote:Armor 11 makes it a heavy IFV, while armor 10 makes it light. My sentiment is it should be somewhere in between.

Armor 11 is light - that's why SM use it on their dropshippable Rhino-class vehicles. It's the lightest armor that is proof against bog standard S4 infantry weapons. Armor 12 is where you start to reach "Heavy", like a Dreadnought.

aka_mythos wrote:Ihow about the hull weapon, is there some way that could be improved? Allow a heavy stubber maybe?

Heavy Stubber in hull and turret make sense, with 3rd PMHS for a few points. This kind of thing strongly exploits the S4 Defensive Weapon rule, as it is armed mostly with Defensive Weapons.

aka_mythos wrote:how about a multi-melta or something...

IMO, this breaks IG tech, which focuses on simple stuff like HB, HF, Multi-Laser. It's a huge capability upgrade to a R24" S8 AP1 gun. Design-wise, such a Chimera intrudes on the role of the Troops within.

It shouldn't be an upgrade. It should just be. AV12/11/10. Easy. Solved. 45 points each, with guns. +5 points for AC or TL-HB turret. And that's it.

BYE

the only thing wrong is the av for its price

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:chimedon had a battle cannon and the full 10 transport;

Chimerax would also be neat with quad autocannons, that would class in at the same as the chimedon.

Full Battlecannon today isn't justifiable.

Twin or quad autocannon starts to intrude on the Pred or Hydra, respectively, so should be avoided.

I was only using them as examples of what existed in the past. I wasn't seriously proposing them, just trying to make the point that with past existance of more powerful weapons, that it wouldn't be to far fetched to see a smaller cannon such as the Conqueror cannon on a chimera and that sacrificing half the transport seats on the chimera would only make it easier to justify. I think the price of a conqueror cannon really comes down to what the price of autocannons and the price of a battle cannon in general are. A conqueror cannon is only about as effective as two autocannons, so something in that price bracket would be reasonable. I agree on the fact it treads on other tanks domain and should be avoided, thats one reason I do like the conqueror cannon as an option, it brings equivalent fire power without being twin or quad autocannons.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I still think a +1 armor to sides should be a vehicle upgrade.

Realistically, let's not bother with the AV11 step. It's kind of like charging +2 pts per model for Lasguns to be AP5. It's such a minor change, and does so little of what you *really* want, don't bother. If we're charging for improved side armor to support enhanced mobility, then go all the way to AV12 sides (like a Hellhound) for +10 pts per Chimera, recognizing that the Chimera gives up at least half of its shooting when moving to use its AV12 sides. Make the change significant and clearly playable at a points cost that makes sense.

I'm not going to be surprised in the hellhound is nerfed down to AV10 or AV11. The hellhound being one of our good units, currently, is likely to be on the nerf chopping block for that reason. GW never fails to do that to some unit, I think its the hellhound.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Armor 11 makes it a heavy IFV, while armor 10 makes it light. My sentiment is it should be somewhere in between.

Armor 11 is light - that's why SM use it on their dropshippable Rhino-class vehicles. It's the lightest armor that is proof against bog standard S4 infantry weapons. Armor 12 is where you start to reach "Heavy", like a Dreadnought.

Well when we were discussin IFV's we were making a parallel to the real world. That a majority of modern IFV's can not repel modern munitions of the same size as a bolter shell. If it doesn't work today, 40K years of improved armor and improved munition technology would end up with similar results to today. There are a few IFV's capable of withstanding larger munitions, and if you went by those heavy IFV's you could justify upto AV12 on the side. I was just distinguishing between differnet IFV armors and showing how varied they can be.

I always thought of the Chimera as an equivalent to the Russian IFV the BMPs. And as such their current 12/10/10 armor always made since to me. The BMPs had thick slooped armor on front but almost nothing in the side or rear. Even worse, in the BMP2s the back door had fuel lines running through it so any hit from anything >50 cal would cover all the occupants in burning fuel!

Frankly real world is not applicable. In a agaming context AV 10 side means this is generally not a vehicle worth having and doesn't parallel its fluff application of an IFV following with the Lemans. AV10 means its not an IFV in the 40K world but a light vehicle.

Most IFV's don't have significant armor. They're hulls are composed of a hardend aluminum and aluminum is the lowest choice for vehicle armor. Humvees come with a hardened aluminum, albeit a thiner shell. Only a few IFV's have steel or ceramic armor. I think a real world comparison is fair to make especially if some one is going to draw parallels to it. IFV's are pulling double duty for two types of light vehicles, troop taxis and light tanks and most are medium only by size. My point was not to say Chimeras should be a particular armor value as much as I was saying there is wide number of things that are called IFV's such that if you draw that parallel you need to be more specific as to the type of IFV you're compairing a Chimera to.

@Aka:

Um, I *agreed* that the Battlecannon was a bad idea, and that the Conqueror would be possible.

I think the Veterans are more likely to be nerfed than the Hellhound. However, I expect the Hellhound to be converted to a 5" Blast following standard Blast rules - much simpler.

Modern RL IFVs generally repel the heaviest firepower carried by modern infantry (AK-47s). 38,000 years from now, they will repel standard infantry-carried Bolter-class weapons. Also, consider the IDF Namera / Achzerit APCs. These tank-based APCs are the RL analogues of what I'd expect the IG to use in a 40k environment. And that Achzerit HAPC is currently in service with the IDF. I'd rate it as AV12/12/10.

I do think there is some room to interpret an IFV as AV12/12/10 in 40k, that would probably be equivalent to the toughest IFV. In reality most IFV's are rated to protect nearing the .50cal range, the Humvee is an example of an aluminum armored vehicle that is meant to lightly take 7.62x39. My main issue with interpreting Chimeras that heavily armored is that it bumps them into the realm of medium battle tank, instead of a squad support vehicle. If you think that ok, you probably like AV12 sides, if you don't you don't.

@aka: I already pointed you to the IDF IFVs / APCs that currently exist in the real world. Given that Israel deals with resisting enemy fire all the time, I think their approach is a good one and a valid starting point.

If you slap a mini-turret from a LAV or BMP onto the Achzerit, that isn't going to turn it into a medium battle tank. It won't even class as a light battle tank, because the firepower will be too light. It'll just be a regular IFV. Even if you put a 40mm Bofors gun like the Swedish CV-90, you're still well undergunned compared to the 100+mm cannon on a MBT.

The Humvee isn't an IFV - it's an armored car. AV 10/10/10 Open Topped. In 40k-terms, it's a Centaur.

The LAV / Stryker is an IFV, with a focus on urban mobility, rather than survivability. I see the LAV / Stryker as more like Rhino, with the MGS as akin to a Pred. So the LAV / Stryker is your RL analouge for an AV 11/11/10 light IFV / APC.

So when you get back to a "heavy" AV12/12/10 IFV / APC like what Israel actually fields, then yeah, it's solid and real. Moving ahead with the emphasis on IED-proofing in urban environments, I think HAPCs like the Achzerit and BMP-T will be the norm for crew protection.

I hear a lot of "is an equivilant of" stuff. Remember, the Leman Russ has a cannon bigger than that on modern battleship! The Chimera has six hull mounted SAE rifles! The list of oddities goes on. Remember, this is WH40k, things are what they are; themselves. Granted, if one person's arguement is "this is impossible!" a good counter-point would be it already being done! "Containing thousands of small explosions in a block of metal next to a bottle of explosive fluids is stupid and highly improbable to work!" counter-point; "They have been doing that for over a hundred years with hundreds of millions (maybe even over a billion?) examples. They are called 'combustion engines' and they are in every liquid fueled car."

@ DD : I'm guessing you know rather little about tanks. You should know by research that the Stryker is nearly impermiable to even .50cal rounds from all sides (even anti-armor missile have difficulty penetrating on a hull strike in certain places).

In my heirarchy of weapons of WH40k, Bolters are more akin to M14's than anything else, with lasguns related to M16's. Remember, lasguns can actually blow people open rather easily, with Bolters blowing people apart! The step up is considerable, but not out of the stadium, more like just from the infield to the outfield (yes, for you Brits and otherwise, this is a baseball reference).

@Skinnitar: Odds are pretty good I know more than you...

If you're saying me that a Stryker has the same level of protection as an MBT-based HAPC like the IDF Merkava 1 or 2 (the basis of the Namera), I wanna know what you're smokin' because that's some strong stuff!

Yeah, a Stryker isn't that tough. One RPG can take it out, sustained fire from a .50 cal can take it out.

Stop watching the military channel, they're nothing but liars who generally have no understanding of Hoploligy

To be fair, a Stryker / LAV is tougher than the un-armored Humvees that were previously used...

quite true.

Actually I know from second hand experience. I happen to be in the US Armed forces. We talk to eachother a lot. I have heard several stories from crewman talking about the Stryker's performance and what they have been through that their previous vehicles, uparmored HMMWV's, Bradleys, M113s, and even one Abrams driver. I have never seen the military channel, nor any TV shows about it. What I know is from working with the thing.

EDITED by Modquisition

Ok so no more modern parallels. To me the 12/10/10 armor on a Chimera was always a statement on its purpose and the idealolgy of the Imperial Guard. The strong forward facing armor meant to repel attacks as it plows towards it enemies, along with a hundred of its friends... And I think thats the assumption the guard works off of when they deploy chimeras. Massed armored advancement or with massed troops running alongside, both situations that make attacks from the flanks and rear unlikely.

And who says armor 10 makes a vehicle not work taking?! If I believed that I would have to leave my Dark Eldar locked away in storage somewhere.

gardeth wrote:

And who says armor 10 makes a vehicle not work taking?! If I believed that I would have to leave my Dark Eldar locked away in storage somewhere.

Its the cost. How much does a fully kitted raider cost? What is the BS they are shooting with? How fast does it move?
Chimeras are a poor choice currently because of their cost vs. functionality. because fo the meta game its quite easy o get a side shot. With the change in area terrain methods of protecting side armor from shots have fallen by the wayside. A 4+ save is meh if every army in the game sans guard and gaunts can at minimum glance with their standard troop range weapon.

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually I know from second hand experience.

Before this gets stupid, however, I'm going to stop talking about this subject, as it is not the purpose of this thread. DD has a tendancy to make things ridiculous, I know better than that.

First off, your personal attacks are not acceptable.

Secondly, none of the military people that you have interacted with have experience with heavy APCs. Now if you were ex-Soviet / Russian Military having served in Afghanistan, then your experience might have some bearing. The Russkies developed the BMP-T heavy APC specifically in response to urban threats, using the T-55 tank chassis. A BMP-T weighs nearly 45 tons and a lot of that is armor. That BMP-T is going to shrug off a lot of firepower that would easily smoke a lightweight Stryker-class vehicle.

And the Israeli experience with similar urban / LIC environments led them to a similar result with their T-55-based Achzerit. This is another 40+ ton heavy APC that will easily shrug off things that would obliterate a Stryker.

If you look at modern APC / IFV procurement and development, *none* of the new designs weigh less than 30 tons. They are all moving towards heavy APC / IFV designs. The uparmored Marder A3 is over 30 tons, and the coming Puma is even heavier with its planned Extra Armor.

Personally, I'm not so much impressed by the US direction here. Use lightweight vehicles so they can get into trouble faster? Riiight... That's a good use of my tax dollars.

But obviously, your secondhand information about Stryker survivablity is directly comparable to what I'm talking about? Nope. This is apples and oranges. Or more like feathers and bricks.

And for the record, I wasn't the one who started on the RL stuff.

Frazzled wrote:

gardeth wrote:

And who says armor 10 makes a vehicle not work taking?! If I believed that I would have to leave my Dark Eldar locked away in storage somewhere.

Its the cost. How much does a fully kitted raider cost? What is the BS they are shooting with? How fast does it move?
Chimeras are a poor choice currently because of their cost vs. functionality. because fo the meta game its quite easy o get a side shot. With the change in area terrain methods of protecting side armor from shots have fallen by the wayside. A 4+ save is meh if every army in the game sans guard and gaunts can at minimum glance with their standard troop range weapon.

70pt fully kitted (nightshields+horrofex) and I'm not saying chimeras are a great buy now, but if they keep the armor the same and go down to the rumored 45pts weapons included, then I would see no reason to change their stats.

If the stats are the same, but the cost is 45 pts, they just become a static, anti-infantry pillbox.

Meh.

That does nothing to address the need for Guard to have useful mobility as a Mech force.

Modquisition on:

Lets keep it polite people. Please argue the points and not lean into personal attacks.

Modquisition off.

I don't think its unreasonable to see Chimeras as (semi-) static pill boxes. I think with the new Codex the emphasis will be if you want mobility you have to take Valkyries. I use chimeras and when the model gets its update I'll probably get some more. The fact that it has to make a decision to move or shoot is just the rules of the game; when you consider that alot of those restrictions on mobility and shooting are limits that are intended to impact imperium units the most its no surprise that they do. It also becomes a bit wishful to want that sort of limitation removed. Also I don't really see how making it AV12 side really helps with mobility, it helps with survivability and doesn't that just make it a bigger pill box?

Every army has some short coming, the IG just have the most. Its important in our attempt to find solutions to patching the excess inherent disadvantages we don't over zealously alter the army by removing all disadvantages or else we become "HURRR! MARINES."

Asking for an AV 11 side is not removing all disadvantages. Asking that the guard's primary vehicle has the same side armor or less as pretty much every transport outside of DE is not a major leap of faith here.

If GW wants to ship more product, which is really all they are concerned about, they need to tweek the chimera or substantially reduce its costs.

AV12/10/10 means you need to arrange things so that the enemy can only see the Front. That pretty much forces the Chimera at the back of your DZ to control LOS. So it is static, meaning you can't use it to Transport dudes as a APC, IFV, or MICV. Pointless.

AV12/12/10 means you simply need to ensure that the enemy can't see the Rear. In this case, it's survivable enough that you can have it trundle about all over, carrying Guardsmen to whereever they need to be, in relative security. Thus, you have decent odds that they will actually get to where you need them. That's useful.

Valkyries will be on Storms, and perhaps HQ squads. But I doubt we'd see full Platoons of Aircav. It seems that'd be far too modern for Guard...

Also, I don't think we need a Chimera model update. It's OK, whereas the Russ is in dire need of revision.

I think 12/12/10 would represent a substantial change of GW’s plan for the way the tank and the army work. It’s not a grav tank, and I don’t think any of us want it priced anywhere near what a Wave Serpent costs. As noted, we already have very solid word that there will be plastic Valkries, and so those are likely going to fill the role of moving your guys around the table quickly.

I agree that within the current metagame, Chimeras need to get cheaper or better. Based on everything we’ve seen in the last few codices, my money’s on cheaper. As previously noted, if they dropped to 45pts with guns included, they’d be pretty solid.

AV11 sides wouldn’t be out of line, but I don’t think the AV10 side armor is unbearably awful, either. It’s certainly weak, but vehicles in general got more durable with the 5th ed damage charts, and if you have a few, you *can* reliably get a couple of moves out of them.

My only real issue with the model is the lasguns. Those things are annoying. They either need to revise the model or give a clear explanation so players understand exactly where the darn things can shoot.

Back in 3E, for most intents and purposes, a Chimera was AV12/12/12. You could very strongly control which side the enemy was forced to shoot at or otherwise engage.

In 5E, a Chimera is effectively AV10/10/10. Enemies can shoot at a sliver of a side, or assault the Rear. That is a *huge* drop in armor effectiveness.

Yes, 5E vehicles got tougher, provided that they had decent AV to begin with. The higher the AV, the relatively tougher the vehicle got. But for low AVs, the benefit is much less.

Moving the Chimera to AV12/12/10 simply returns it pretty much to where it was before the recent changes.
___

WRT Wave Sperpent and Falcon, those are Fast Skimmers with much heavier (and more accurate) weapon options. They are far more mobile by being Fast Skimmers, more survivable by due to SMF, more accurate due to twin-link, and hit harder due to access of all Eldar Heavy Weapons. The Valkyrie is much more comparable here, and if it's an AV12/12/10 Fast Skimmer, I can see it being priced similar to a Wave Serpent.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:how about a multi-melta or something...

IMO, this breaks IG tech, which focuses on simple stuff like HB, HF, Multi-Laser. It's a huge capability upgrade to a R24" S8 AP1 gun. Design-wise, such a Chimera intrudes on the role of the Troops within.

Back on topic, there are Sentinels which are equipped with the meltagun options through Forgeworld, so it's not completely out of the question that a melta gun be attached to the sentinel.

Actually, looking at the Elysian Sentinel model, it may be a multimelta. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/dsent.htm

@Bryant: For whatever reason, Sentinels carry much heavier weapons than Chimeras. Conceptually, GW sees the Chimera as a heavy APC armed only with basic Heavy Weapons (HB, HF, multi-laser).

Sentinels are gun platforms, so they also have Lascannon and Autocannon, along with FW Missile Launcher and MM options.

Different roles, diffent options.

I'm agreeing with HBMC here. 12/11/10, 45 points plus stuff.

I think it's kinda interesting how GW gave the Chimera 'special rules' (more like 'speshul') for whatever reason; not only are there 6 hull-mounted lasguns (which nobody knows how to use, even if they could do something), but the Chimera is also AMPHIBIOUS. It can cross water like clear terrain.

I know! I use it in like every game. Ever. Now, the Rhino's special rule, IIRC, is that it can remove an immobilization result on a...what, 4+? 5+? in the shooting phase.

Which special rule is more useful there?

Concerning the command chimera, well, I think it might be best served by cutting the passenger capacity from 12 to 6 (or 8, or whatever), but allowing to serve as a master vox (or some such). Only problem is it getting destroyed, but meh.

Back in 3E, for most intents and purposes, a Chimera was AV12/12/12. You could very strongly control which side the enemy was forced to shoot at or otherwise engage.

In 5E, a Chimera is effectively AV10/10/10. Enemies can shoot at a sliver of a side, or assault the Rear. That is a *huge* drop in armor effectiveness.

The lack of Area Terrain with which to hide those sides does matter, but you certainly can and did get side shots on Chimeras. IMO you’re overstating your case. The rules for getting a side shot were identical in 3rd. Enemies could always shoot at a sliver of side; it was just a little easier to hide them. They are more vulnerable in assault, but that applies to almost all vehicles. There are three I can think of with rear AV over 10.

WRT Wave Sperpent and Falcon, those are Fast Skimmers with much heavier (and more accurate) weapon options. They are far more mobile by being Fast Skimmers, more survivable by due to SMF, more accurate due to twin-link, and hit harder due to access of all Eldar Heavy Weapons.

“Fast” got slower. SMF became only available if you’re not shooting, where before you got both at once. A Wave Serpent is less heavily-armed than a Chimera; a twin-linked shuriken cannon, starcannon, or scatter laser is certainly inferior to a multilaser plus a heavy bolter against infantry. Though it is nice that serpents get the option to take antitank weapons.

IMO right now serpents are overpriced too.

Ogiwan, game one at the tournament I played in on Saturday had a Difficult river crossing almost the entire length of the table. My opponent was very happy with his amphibious chimeras. I think maybe a third or so of the tables had water features on them. But Danger Planet does have better terrain than lesser gaming stores. Rhinos can repair Immobilized on a 6, FYI.

DD, you are forgetting that the Russian technology is hunks of junk compared to US made tech., past and present. (Remember, the T-34 was a +Heavy Tank and the Sherman was a "regular" tank. Our tank destroyers were balistically able to tear through King Tigers, which were superio [balistically and defensively] to T-34s, in case you were going to try that arguement) I base this off of the fact that whenever American designed/made tanks went up against Russian designed/made tanks that weren't a third generation ahead (or behind) the Russian vehicles lost. I use Isreali and Indian wars as examples of this (yes, Russian T-72s[?] annihalated American Shermans and M48s[?], all of which were much older era, lighter, tanks).

As for the T-55 and its weight/armor ratio, you are ignorantly ignoring the fact that it was made in 1947! The Stryker was developed in the 1990s! Entered service in the 21st Century. Who is comparing apples to oranges or feathers to bricks? I think our little friend DD is! Not only are the materials used totally different! But the incorperated counter-anti-armor systems totally different! T-55 (actually, it was the T54, I'll say now) had none, save their hulls, the Stryker has many, not including "The Cage."

I 'stryke' back, because DD brought up the T-54 being converted into a troop transport by the Isrealis. I actually knew someone personally, still talk to him from time to time, I probably should give him a call later now that I think about it... who was in the Israeli Special Forces, a Paratrooper, who trained and operated with these T-54 transports, or the Teeran, as he commonly called it, and said they weren't preferable, but a cheap way of using captured equipment. Basically what that means is that it was a "Freebie" they got for kicking the crap out of their enemy who was using Russian tanks.

BACK ONTO CHIMERAS!!! When someone, I forget now who mentioned it, suggested AV12-11-10, I thought: "That is a reasonable, fluffy, and acceptable compromise." It isn't what I would prefer, but is quite acceptable and would keep costs down, so that more may be taken at reasonable prices.

Laying out Chimeras into the army, I would place only a few restrictions;
If you take them in Infantry Platoons, every squad must take one.
One may be taken as an open attachement to the HQ section; if deployed at the same time as the troops, any squad my start the battle within. This means that it may be taken as the one HQ "unit" for the scenarios where that is limited. So you could start a battle with a Troops squad inside the HQ Chimera, as it is a free roaming transports, like the Falcon and Hammerhead are.

@Mannahnin:

Under 3E, if I'm in the Front arc, I can only shoot at the front, even if I can see part of the model's side. If my unit starts in the Front arc, I can only assault the Front armor, even if I have enough movement to reach the Side. And even then, there's not rule treating the "top" as Rear. That's what I'm talking about when I say that there is a lot more control over what can be shot or assaulted in 3E.

Fast Skimmers still move 24" (you need to dig in the rulebook to find this). As far as weaponry goes, those twin weapons roll the same 6 dice, to try and score hits, but aren't penalized by Defensive Weapon limitation. Same as the Razorback.

I agree that Serpents are overpriced. Nevertheless, they are far more capable than Chimeras.

@Skinnitar, are you *sure* you know about tanks?

A T-34 is a medium tank, similar to the Sherman crusier. A KV or later JS/IS is a heavy tank.

The original T-54 is 1947+, but the uprated T-55 is 1960+ - please try to keep the two tanks straight! Regardless, we're not really talking about the T-55, as we're only interested in the fact that something like 100,000 of these chassis were made and are widely-available throughout the world.

The Stryker is a LAV which is really a Mowag Pirahna. So if you're saying a T-55 is a T-54 then you need to do the same with the Stryker, and properly date it back to the 1970s. In any case, the Stryker is fairly old technology, and it's going to be severely outclassed in the next decade.

We're talking about the BMP-T and Achzerit rebuilds with a heavy APC shell which is much more heavily armored than a Stryker. There is no shame in reusing a reliable, captured chassis for other purposes. In any case, if you count the Stryker as a Y2000+ vehicle, then for consistency's sake, you must count the Achzerit as 1990 or so, when it entered service.

If you look at the brand new IDF Namer, as I originally noted, it did not enter service until this year, so clearly this 45-ton HAPC is the way of the future.

Actually... the T-55 is only a modernized (1956 modernized) version of the T-54, which was mostly mechanical, weapons, weapons systems, turret was the most major change, everything else, main hull, tracks, ect... So, no, the T-55 was not a 1960's era tank design, you could probably modify an existing T-54 to be exactly the same as a T-55 if you really wanted to. So defeat there.

As for the T-34, it's a big arguement that is still going on today, the T-34 was far ahead of the M4 in design (slope armor being the main feature), so weight classing gets tossed out the window, the Sherman was also heavier mechanically than the T-34, had more "comfort" features, additional tactical equipment, ect... which added more weight the T-34 didn't have, so forth and so on. Many historians and tankers would consider the T-34 more than medium, at least.

Mowhag Pirahna is the accused "base" idea, but then so is the Churchil for Abrams. Are we going to say that the two are equal? Oh! The Model-T is also a wheeled vehicle, is that the base of the Stryker too? But then really, a tracked tank is just tracks draped over wheels with side synched wheels, so the Abrams is in the same family too. Ah! The Stryker and the Abrams are comprable vehicles! I think your logic is broken there, DD. The Stryker is just too much upgraded from the ground up compared to the Swiss Pirahna. The Stryker is based on, not a varient of, the Pirahna.

If heavier vehicles are the way of the future, how come the Abrams still weighs in around 70 tons, the King Panzer weighed in around... 70 tons! Wow! I guess heavier isn't necessarily better.... Sometimes heavier vehicles are wanted, other times lighter is better, sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother! Role, purpose, and performance are a bigger focal point for determining the design of a vehicle. If just straight protection was the objective, than yes, bigger and heavier is better. Now if you want to try and be cheaper, easier to tranport, more delivery options, then lighter is probably the option to focus on.

As for the Merkava Namer, it isn't a "brand new" tank. It is a varient of the Merkava Mark IV, hence that little prefix title "Merkava", which was developed in the late 1990's and entered service in 2004. And is a battle tank. You will also notice that this is another of, what is it, four now, your references to Israeli vehicles. The Isrealis, who have a lot of design focussed on urban environments due to their recurring combat and anti-insurgent/terrorist response in urban environments, where speed and delivery systems are not as imporant as overhead and close quarters protection, where tougher armor is a big factor to survivability, hence, increased weight.

Okay! I've been tempted enough with easy arguements! I am NOT going to make any other responses to such arguements unless they directly involve the ACTUAL discussion!

John has to be right. Doesn't matter what about, he has to be right about something. So he'll spiral off on tangents and red herrings and make strawmans just to get off point until he finds a point he can wear you down on before declaring victory - however small (or imagined) it may be.

BYE

OK, one last go!

OTOH, the T-55 was significant enough of a change to warrant redesignation by the Russkies.

It is interesting that you ignore the KV and JS/IS tanks, which are very clearly heavy tanks. Rolling pillboxes proof against most any German weapon, initially. If the Soviets didn't have KV/JS/IS, and Germans didn't have Tigers, and M4 actually counted as a true "medium", then I guess one could argue T-34 as "heavy". I count the M4 as a "cruiser" and consider it a light "medium".

Nice red herring with the Model T, when the Pirana - LAV - Stryker lineage is well-documented. FAIL!

Also, more herring with the Abrans vs King Tiger. We're talking about moving from <20 ton light APCs to 40-50 ton heavy APCs. Things like the Namer / BMP-T / Achzerit are considerably heavier than a Stryker.

And given that the US is constantly uparmoring Humvees, Strykers, Bradleys, and everything else in Iraq, it would appear that the notion of lighter vehicles isn't working on the ground. After all, if mobility were so good, why bother adding RPG cages and additional armor? Just be mobile and light enough that a HH-53 can airlift a smoked APC back to base.

OTOH, if every infantryman were armored as well as a modern MBT, then lightweight APCs would do just fine. So that is why RL lightweight vehicles like the Stryker stand in for Rhino in 40k, while heavyweight APCs like Namer should stand in for Chimera.

The Right One wrote:OK, one last go!

What'd I just say Skin? What'd I just say???!!??!!??

Like God-damned fing clockwork he is. I couldn't've scripted the above any better if I'd tried...



BYE

@ DD : This arguement about past/modern tanks and transports has only one goal for you, DD. If you want to continue this discussion, do it over PMs or find a forum where it belongs. Otherwise, I'm done with your off topic discussion. Let us stay on Chimeras.

Chimera : 50pts
Capacity : 12 Guardsmen
AV : 12 - 11 - 10
Armament : Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter/Flamer and Turret Mounted Multi-Laser.
Upgrades : Regular Vehicle Upgrades and;
+5pts ; Turret Autocannon
+5pts ; Twin Linked Heavy Bolter

Varient : Nemean : 70pts
Capacity : 7 Guardsmen
AV : 12 - 11 - 10
Armament : Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter/Flamer, Turret Multilaser, and Rear Cupola moounted Twin Linked Heavy Bolters/or Lascannon
Upgrades : Regular Vehicle Upgrade and;
+5pts ; Turret Autocannon
+5pts ; Twin Linked Heavy Bolters
+5pts ; Rear Cupola Twin Linked Autocannons

The Nemean (Lion? Not bad....) varient looks like it's a command track (7 passengers) and simultaneously a heavy firepower track. Frankly, I don't think that they'd mix.

If it's a command track, cut down on the passenger space, leave the weapons as normal, and give it some rule to represent the voxes and tac array. Like i said, it counts as a Master Vox or some such.

If you want a light tank, then I think the best would be to allow heavier weapons on the turret, throw sponsoons on there, and totally nix the troop carrying.

Mixing troops with extra firepower, doesn't make sense? Didn't they do that with the Rhino and Razorback? I like my Razorback.... I prefer the cheaper Rhino to carry more, but then again, I can have the bigger squads to put in them. Command Squads can't get bigger than 8 (5 norm. +Commissar +Priest +Psycher = 8 ) so paying for a full sized Chimera doesn't make sense, pricing it lower doesn't make sense either, making a new vehicle based on nothing currently existing doesn't seem right either. Making it "count as a master vox" is a fluffy idea, problem being, why don't I just buy the master vox for my squad then? Don't need a special vehicle for that, can model it that way anyhow and just say "yeah, that's my Command Chimera, that's all." Doesn't support the need for some extra "oomph" you lose if you are making your Command Squad into an assault team, which is why you have them in a Chimera to begin with. Seems like a fair vehicle if you ask me. Now if you don't want one, you can still use a regular Chimera and buy a mastervox for your squad if you want. But for those of us looking for a "proposed rule" we need something... proposed, not exactly what we already have but worse.

And thank you for noticing Nemean, which, in some versions, is the offspring of the Chimera in Classical Mythology. I thought it was a good twist.

H.B.M.C. wrote:John has to be right. Doesn't matter what about, he has to be right about something. So he'll spiral off on tangents and red herrings and make strawmans just to get off point until he finds a point he can wear you down on before declaring victory - however small (or imagined) it may be.

To be fair, in this particular argument, both sides are morons.

@aga, gee, thanks for your constructive contribution to the thread... :S

Modquisition: As a reminder argue the points not the personalities please.

So am I to take it that Aga, HBMC, DD, have no complaints or suggestions about my current suggestion for the Chimera and a "Nemean" version of the Chimera?

@Skinnitar: TBH, I think we're all just too darn busy sniping at each other and making snide remarks to think about your Chimeras any more...

Getting more serious, the revised Chimera is basically OK, but you're charging probably 5 pts too much if you're taking away the turret HB / HF options in the process.

I like the Nemean, but I'd like to see the improved comms as standard and a option for a conqueror cannon.

I would just like to throw in this old saying.

"in peace time everyone wants speed and mobility, however once a shooting war starts armor and firepower become all the rage"

Personally, when I think chimera I think BMP-1. Heck the BMP-1 even had ports for the ak's just like the chimera has for lasguns. Thats also why the chimera has the amphebious special rule. This tank is not a gun boat, but it should be able to certainly support the infantry. Thats why I like Skins first varient, but not his second. I also agree we need a command varient, with a smaller capacity, improved comms. No matter what they want to do, the chimera needs av 11 sides.

@foil: QFT.

@ Foil : NO MORE MODERN ERA COMPARISONS!!! Enough words have been wasted there. Especially on those Warsaw Pact POS.

@ Aka : Conqueror cannon is not in the standard Rulebook or the Codices. Not only that, but it seems a bit too uncharacteristic for a Chimera, which is an infantry vehicle, so should have infantry type weapons. Basically, in my opinion, it would not fit into or onto a Command Chimera type vehicle. Remember, a lot more goes into a cannon than just a turret, you would need a lot of space for ammunition, weapons control, ect... Then fit all the comms gear in for the commanders and accompanying command level equipment, and you don't have much room left for but one or two troopers!

I do not disagree that the Command Chimera could have a vox system, but you would just end up paying double, as any time the commander leaves the vehicle, he would need to have bought the vox to keep up the communications. Just buy it in the squad to begin with and leave it out of the tank's price.

If the Russ' main gun were ever fired, the Commander would be pulped instantly by the gun breech...

And I think there needs to be an updated model for the Russ. Only the Imperial Guard, Eldar, and Dark Eldar are using their original vehicle models still, and the Falcon is still a great looking model for the Eldar, and the Dark Eldar probably need a whole army update of models, but I've never really heard anyone make criticism of the models.

The Chimera is a decent model, could use an update, but I think it wouldn't look much different (I would like to see side hatches, though, hard to get ten guys to pile out of one door, even if it is a really big door), though the Russ should have a lower track profile, bigger turret, and generally not such a... well, French looking design. Just my opinion.

I have been trying to make a Turret kit for my Russes, without much success, but I haven't yet gotten plasticard to work how I want it to.

I'd argue that the Imperium would never invest the resources to make anything that carries Guardsmen able to stop more than a thrown rock (and a small one at that). This the 41st millenium. Human lives are cheap and expendable. The only reason they give the guard a vehicle is so they can keep up with the armor and provide an infantry screen to the tanks - which are worth something.

I don't think the intent of the armor is to protect the IG inside it. The intent of the armor is to keep the Emperor's most blessed vehicle running. You can always get another squad to stuff in the crew compartment (even if it is riddled with holes from bolters), but it's a lot harded to stuff a new engine into it and do all the proper blessings to revive the machine spirit.

That's totally aside. The Side Armor of 10 makes the thing junk. AV 12/11/10 would be welcome. Even plasma guns would make it cry on the side, but at least it'd be bolter-proof. And while 'in fluff' it might be appropriate for Marines to immobilize the thing with bolter rounds (which are something like 1 or 2 cal, iirc) by knocking out the tracks, it doesn't make for a better game, imho.

And I think the size of the vehicle is a little too big - if it was a little smaller, like the size of the rhino, I think it would help (and make it easier to hide those AV10 sides!). An update on the Russ and Chimera would both be welcome to me.

I like the idea of a command chimera. Maybe give it the standard "reroll one reserves roll a turn" bonus like the Damocles. It'd be great if it could call down an orbital barrage, but I don't think that's appropriate for IG. It is for Marines, they're coordinated. I see IG needing to fill out forms in triplicate to get the orbital bombardment, and even then, it will only arrive in three weeks.

And maybe a special Inquisitorial Chimera that does give the orbital bombardment (without using the HS slot).

I would say that IG aren't really into Orbital Bombardment nearly as much as they are into Artillery Support. Artillery is much, much cheaper than than missiles and torpedoes and what not. So being able to call in Artillery would be useful, interesting, and fluffy as a bunny.

I have never actually read about bolters tearing up or immobilizing Chimeras, actually. In battle reports and such, yes, but not in any of the real fluff. Though I haven't read all the stories, I'll admit.

The ancient idea that Guardsmen are utterly dispossable really depends on who's and what era's fluff you read. Lately, I have noticed, there are fewer fields and canyons carpetted with the bodies of Guardsmen as the accepted norm. I am not saying it doesn't happen, the scale of War in 40k us awesome, and whenever you mass your troops to prepare for an assault, you run the risk of them being all slaughtered by an ambushing massive force. Personally, I would like to see the Guard be more valiant sacrafice then the stupid ones, much more interesting really.

Skinnattittar wrote:I have never actually read about bolters tearing up or immobilizing Chimeras, actually. In battle reports and such, yes, but not in any of the real fluff. Though I haven't read all the stories, I'll admit.

I haven't read all the fluff either. But, it's space marines, and they can do anything! iirc, Bolters are like 50 or 75mm (but I can't remember for certain) - so it seems reasonable they could get some lucky shots to disable the tracks.

Depending on the writer, yes the fluff varies from masses of Guard dying in a single shot to the valiant struggle of them to stay upright against Orks, Nids, and the evil Traitor Marines. I think that reflects more on the individual IG commander. Some, like Gaunt, very much care about getting their men out of the war alive. Some others are more concerned with how much ground they take and throw men into the meatgrinder ala Russia in WWI and WWII. I think the quality of the IG is inverse to how quickly their commander will sacrifice them.

The whole "Bolters a X to Y caliber" where X and Y are double digits above the decimal being compared to modern such weapons is a bit of a misnomer to begin with. Remember, bolters aren't long cased, first off, next, they are rocket-esque projectiles with a relatively low velocity.

Next, as firearms have progressed technologically, so has armor and materials. So armor penetration, vehicle damage, ect.. can use the same arguement to say "no damage done." Essentially, your arguement is flawed and broken and shouldn't be used; EVER! So stop it! Bad nerd!

As for the fluff about mass numbers of such and such, Chimeras pre-date all that anyhow, so that sort of mode of thought doesn't apply anyhow. Lastly, fluff should only be a guide to the flavor, not the dictator of the game. If we followed fluff, people wouldn't play Guard at all, basically because they would just be tripping over themselves and dying, and there would be rules in place that would make the controlling player make poor decisions and allow mass portions of his army be wiped out. Fluff could be a goal, not a restriction.

Fluff doesn't equal rules. As I said above, I think side armor of 11 is called for and makes the thing playable. I know it's playable now, but it's obviously better armored than an ork trukk........

dietrich wrote:Fluff doesn't equal rules.

Which is one of the larger failings of this game.

BYE

@ HBMC : Meh.

It would be nice, but either the fluff would have to be horribly unrealistic, or the game would have to be horribly over complex and unwilling to be played. Isn't it unwilling enough as it is?

It would be cool to have a more expanded rule set to the movie marine article, cover all the races to that ridiculous degree.

If GW did things like that, WD might even be worth buying again...

wait, are we hating on fluff now?

Darn, I just read some that made the multi-laser bigger than the lascannon and autocannon.
A fire support team requires a special unmanned vehicle to mount a multi-las (like a SM thunderfire cannon) called a rapier, because it's too big for two men to carry, meaning that a chimera has every right to mount any weapon a sentinel can.

Rapier doesn't use a multi-laser. Rapier uses a weapon that is in between a multi-laser and a lascannon, that is configured into a 4 barreled setup to allow it to have a better rate of fire.

aka_mythos wrote:Rapier doesn't use a multi-laser. Rapier uses a weapon that is in between a multi-laser and a lascannon, that is configured into a 4 barreled setup to allow it to have a better rate of fire.

What? I fail again? Lame...

Still, it'd be cool to see more options for the chimera. An autocannon or lascannon isn't that much to ask for? Is it not?

A Rapier is half-way to a Laser Destroyer. It's not quite a Laser Destroyer, but it's better than a Lascannon. It's an in between weapon in the same way the Plasma Destroyer is half-way between a Plasma Cannon and Plasma Blast Gun, rather than an offshoot weapon like the Hellgun and the Multi-Laser.

BYE