Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, I was bored, so I had an idea.

Vindicators, as I've seen them work well against tanks However, after seeing some models of older german tank hunter tanks, I've decided to design my own.

about the size of the vindicator, top hatch is removed to give a much lower sillohet, and make it much harder to see.

In place of the vindicators short barrel cannon, I've decided it should be comming back to about where the seats are on the rhinoes, be opentopped, and have a 6" cannon. [game size.]

So.

Bison Tank hunter 115 points

Type: tank, open topped

BS4 AV: 10,10,10

Armaments:
Bison cannon.
Storm bolter

Bison cannon...
The bison cannon delivers a smaller variant of the payload designed for the vindicator. this means it can be loaded faster, but cannot make the range or the area damage that a vindicator can make.

18" S9 AP1 Heavy 1. [heavy two, maybe to show that the cannon is firing alot faster then a vindicator?]
Note: if the tank intends to use it's main cannon, it may not move, as it's frame would not allow for that.


Option...
May take a camo cloak [the ones leman russi get] for 20 pts

Edit: nerfed cannon, reduced armour [the armour was a mis print, was supposed to be 10,10,10.] removed stealth rule and added it as an upgrade.

so its rhino with 30" range railcannon and stealth
seriusly stop spamming these treads

Also, it's opentopped and back AV11 (why I can't understand)

Let's break this down

Captain Solon wrote:
Bison Tank hunter points? 80?

Type: tank, open topped

BS4 AV: 11, 11, 11.

Armaments:
Bison cannon.
Storm bolter

So far, not so bad. Weak armor, one main gun, open-topped, 80 points.

Captain Solon wrote:30" S10 AP1 Heavy 1.
Note: if the bison cannon is fired, the storm bolter may not fire under any reason, as the bison still needs the entire crew [space the driver] to load it and fire it. [so, it's effectively ordnance, but without blast template.]

This is pointless. So you get a 30" railgun, that you can move 6" and still fire...and the downside is that you can't fire the Storm Bolter? Ordinance can't be fired in a turn that the vehicle has moved. Make it S10 Ap2, Ordinance...and you may have a better shot at this all making sense.

Captain Solon wrote:Special rule:

Small frame
The small frame of the tank begets a small sillohet, and a weak plating, however, it is light enough to drive safely over terrain.
This tank need take no test when moving through terrain, be it dangerous or difficult. additionally, it's low sillohet means that it gains the stealth universal special rule.

So it can move through terrain better than any non-skimmer in the game...it gains a 6+ save in the open, and a 3+ if obscured?
Just no.

The Vindicator works just fine. If you want it to be longer ranged, drop it to S8 Ap3, Large Blast...play IG, and you have a LRBT with much better armor than this idea.

Note: Ordnance CAN be fired after a move, it's only ordnance barrage that can't move and fire. Ordnance would actually be a bonus as you get to roll 2d6 and choose the highest.
Stealth doesn't grant a 6+ save in the open either.

After a second thought I'm actually starting to like it. I'd drop the back armour to 10 and remove stealth though, maybe make it AP2.

Oscarius wrote:Note: Ordnance CAN be fired after a move, it's only ordnance barrage that can't move and fire. Ordnance would actually be a bonus as you get to roll 2d6 and choose the highest.
Stealth doesn't grant a 6+ save in the open either.

After a second thought I'm actually starting to like it. I'd drop the back armour to 10 and remove stealth though, maybe make it AP2.

Stealth gives you a +1 to your cover save. No cover save +1 = a 6+ cover save.

You are correct about ordinance. And that being said...a vehicle that can move 6", get a 6+ cover save, and fire a railgun at 30"?
No.

I disagree, as it's very hard to improve a save that you don't have. ^^

EDIT: But I have to say that I'm not 100% sure...

Oscarius wrote:I disagree, as it's very hard to improve a save that you don't have. ^^

EDIT: But I have to say that I'm not 100% sure...

The DH codex references subtracting cover saves, (see Vindicare "Spy Mask") to the point that a 6+ save becomes no save at all.
My logic runs that it works the opposite way as well.

Well my logic is a little different then.
Might be a bad arguement though but try to follow this:

You have a 6+ save and is hit by a Vindicare.
To save you need to roll a 6.
You get -1 to all cover saves.
Which means that even if you roll a 6 it's subtracted by 1, making a 5 which fail.

You get struck by something ignoring your armour while in the open.
To save the pen/wound you have to roll what on the d6?
And how does a +1 make a difference?

Oscarius wrote:Well my logic is a little different then.
Might be a bad arguement though but try to follow this:

You have a 6+ save and is hit by a Vindicare.
To save you need to roll a 6.
You get -1 to all cover saves.
Which means that even if you roll a 6 it's subtracted by 1, making a 5 which fail.

You get struck by something ignoring your armour while in the open.
To save the pen/wound you have to roll what on the d6?
And how does a +1 make a difference?

Briefly spoke to Gwar!, and got his logic. (Which is different from yours.)

A 6+ save is made to a 7+, RAW. You cannot make a 7+ save.
No save, can't be improved...so it isn't.

I still dislike the vehicle having the Stealh rule. Why? Because right now the vehicle has roughly 30 points worth of upgrades (storm bolter + 10, camo nets +20). Making this a 50 point vehicle. But even worse: camo nets work if the vehicle hasn't moved. Stealth works all the time....aka, that upgrade should run at least 30 points.
Add on the fact that it can move over/through any terrain, except impassible, with no modifiers to movement/risk of damage.

So...is this really a 40 point vehicle without the extra wargear? No. The gun and special movement allowance makes it MUCH more valuable.

And what did I say?

After a second thought I'm actually starting to like it. I'd drop the back armour to 10 and remove stealth though, maybe make it AP2.

Also, gwar's logic might be different, but we get the same results.

Why not just have them requisition a destroyer tank hunter?

Che-Vito wrote: A 6+ save is made to a 7+, RAW. You cannot make a 7+ save.

Not quite, well, in fantasy you can
Lol. in fantasy it's first you get a 6, then a 4-6 [7] 6 followed by 5,6 [8] and 6 followed by 6 [9+ to hit.]

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Sabre_Tank_Hunter

They used to have a tank hunter, I converted one back in the day, the rules are from 1989 white dwarf. It only had an auto cannon, but that was the basic tank canon at the time.

You could just make it a non transport rhino with a battle cannon with ap shells now.

Not sure why people keep making this a template weapon. If the idea is a tank hunter it should be for focused fire. Honestly a razorback with twin linked las cannons works wonders as anti tank now...no? Still like the silhouette of the saber though, especially with how targeting rules work.

I think just give the vindi the option to take a vanquisher cannon, not sure what the points would be.


For comparison:

Battle cannon: 72" S8 AP 3 Ordinance

Vanquisher: 96" S8 AP 3 Ordinance
May fire AT shell, trades the blast template for 2d6 armor penetration, uses BS to hit

Laser destroyer: 72" S10 AP 2, counts as Ordinance for armor penetration and such but doesn't use a blast template, uses BS to hit

Turbo laser: 12-72", S9 AP 2 Heavy/1 Blast, can be multi-barreled to become heavy/2, heavy/3, etc, with extra blast templates counting as barrage.

Captain Solon wrote:

Che-Vito wrote: A 6+ save is made to a 7+, RAW. You cannot make a 7+ save.

Not quite, well, in fantasy you can
Lol. in fantasy it's first you get a 6, then a 4-6 [7] 6 followed by 5,6 [8] and 6 followed by 6 [9+ to hit.]

This isn't fantasy.

First off:
Its spelled 'Silhouette'. Darned French! Invadin' our language! [/sarcasm]

Second:
Stop. Just Stop. Space marines already get all the good stuff. They don't need ANOTHER Vehicle, that... lemme guess... looks like a rhino with a gun? oh wait... you want it smaller, and harder to see, easier to get behind cover, nevermind Not at all fluffy. OK. And you want it to have a 6" Gun? with an 18" range? Its gun is longer than the vindicators, but it somehow has less range. HMmmmm. Back to the 6" gun. HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Why not just say "I want a 24" Range, but I Don't want to be shot by things with a 24" Range before being able to shoot them first"?

OK One S9 small pie per turn, with 18" Range. Not as bad as your 6" Heavy 25 S10 AP 1 Plasma Cannon. Two S9 AP1 Small pie. thats too much. either cut down on S or Shots.

Andrew1975 wrote:http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Sabre_Tank_Hunter

They used to have a tank hunter, I converted one back in the day, the rules are from 1989 white dwarf. It only had an auto cannon, but that was the basic tank canon at the time.

It's funny that you mention this because the Autocannon used to be very different. It used to be Str8 and have a 1" blast marker. So it was a mini-battlecannon.

Of course, its role now is much much different!

NostrilOfTerror wrote:First off:
Its spelled 'Silhouette'. Darned French! Invadin' our language! [/sarcasm]

Second:
Stop. Just Stop. Space marines already get all the good stuff. They don't need ANOTHER Vehicle, that... lemme guess... looks like a rhino with a gun? oh wait... you want it smaller, and harder to see, easier to get behind cover, nevermind Not at all fluffy. OK. And you want it to have a 6" Gun? with an 18" range? Its gun is longer than the vindicators, but it somehow has less range. HMmmmm. Back to the 6" gun. HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Why not just say "I want a 24" Range, but I Don't want to be shot by things with a 24" Range before being able to shoot them first"?

OK One S9 small pie per turn, with 18" Range. Not as bad as your 6" Heavy 25 S10 AP 1 Plasma Cannon. Two S9 AP1 Small pie. thats too much. either cut down on S or Shots.

First:
If you need to physically tell people you're being sarcastic, there is something wrong with you.

Second:
Another vehicle? look at guard. look at you. look at guard again. now go and buy that deodourant they do this with.
Also, it's a TANK HUNTER. based on GERMAN TANK HUNTERS which, by design were smaller then MBT.
A long cannon doesn't mean that it has BETTER RANGE. it simply means it will be more accurate.
Then, you're assumeing that my giving it 18" has anything to do with being hit first? Most anti-tank is either 6,12 or 36 - 48" range. 24" isn't the tank cade.

You're talking about 2 lascannons effective, better, to encorporate their PURPOSE. mounted on a tank that can be taken out by a space marine.

what tank hunter is it based then?
there is big differense between ww2 and 40k

marines dont need tank hunter

stop spamming this board
seriusly stop it

Devastator wrote:what tank hunter is it based then?
there is big differense between ww2 and 40k

marines dont need tank hunter

stop spamming this board
seriusly stop it

He has said himself that it is "his job."

Good luck.

I think this at the moment would be fine. I definitely like the idea of having Camo Netting, I could stick this in cover at the start of the game and to get it out my enemy would probably have to assault it.

Also, Solon, I'm not going to say that you're "spamming the board", but you should really work a bit more on your ideas before posting them out here. You usually stick something out here that is insane and seems like you put no time into balancing it. With proposed rules, we want them proposed, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be balanced and refined.

Captain Solon wrote:
Another vehicle? look at guard. look at you. look at guard again. now go and buy that deodourant they do this with.

This argument holds no water Solon, mainly because the Imperial Guard are supposed to be THE treadhead (aka vehicle) army in 40k. They are supposed (and really havent since their introduction) to have more vehicles then anyone else in the game. It is what is supposed to make them different then every other army and is a key selling point for them.

I mean heck, nobody plays IG cause of the elite, tough as nails infantry. They play em cause of the tanks!

*Looks at his IG medic on bike*

I honestly have no idea why a tank hunter would have:

A short ranged weapon
Low armor
Removed top armor for "greatly reduced visibility"... what?

How about instead of this piece of crap I just take a combat squad with a lascannon?

Here would be my quick implementation of the idea:

Take a Vindicator.
Make it 11/11/10.
Give it a Vanquisher Cannon from the Imperial Guard Codex.


Voila! The weakened armor should compensate for what is arguably a better weapon (at BS4 at least). It's also damn easy to keep track of stat-wise, and for your opponent to get a good grasp on it.

Awesome, a 115pts "tank" that cant move and shoot and has a 18" range. Yeah I can totally see how this is better than a 90pt Typhoon or a 150 Dread in a Pod Seriously, Think first, post later

think before posting


Savage irony alert after MOD action. QFT. Please be polite when responding to other users, your comment was over the line and needlessly rude.

You post in a thread that is nearly a week old* just to say something like that...real mature?
Are you on some kind of vendetta against Solon?

*note, I don't think that a thread is dead because noone has posted in it for a week, I just think that something of value ought to be added.

DakkaDakka wrote:

You forget speeders.

Really, I agree with you that the marine AT is good enough already. I don't really understand why you quoted me there.
What I don't agree with is "NoToTheMan"'s post...

Now irrelevent text removed. Move along citizens. Nothing to see here. Cargo pants FTW.

Anyway: back on topic:

I see the anti-tank as being a possible nod to the war machine of armies passed. I'd quite comfortably give this weapon to another army that uses simmilar tactics, The best I can think of would be tau, but they've the railgun-clad hammerhead.