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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we *really* need Land Raider twin Lascannons to be counted as Defensive, because Space Marines aren't popular enough already...

It'd make Land Raiders worth their huge price tag.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we *really* need Land Raider twin Lascannons to be counted as Defensive, because Space Marines aren't popular enough already...

It'd make Land Raiders worth their huge price tag.

BYE

Adjust the price then, don't let them break a rule.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we *really* need Land Raider twin Lascannons to be counted as Defensive, because Space Marines aren't popular enough already...

The latest set of rumors are that the machine spirit will allow the Land Raider to move 6" and still fire all it's weapons. If the 40K universe is a high school the space marines were already captain of the 40K football team and soon they'll be crowned 40K prom king

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212817.page

Jay of Moore wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, we *really* need Land Raider twin Lascannons to be counted as Defensive, because Space Marines aren't popular enough already...

The latest set of rumors are that the machine spirit will allow the Land Raider to move 6" and still fire all it's weapons. If the 40K universe is a high school the space marines were already captain of the 40K football team and soon they'll be crowned 40K prom king

To shoot on the move is offensive,not defensive.
The hurricane bolters on a crusader can count as defensive.

So the rule for S4 defensive weapons is overridden in the first codex to be released, Impressive! To me 5th edition isn't shaping up as an improvment so far.

I hear the guard codex may be released early 2008, If it sucks it may be time to give 40k the shove and move to greener pastures.

Use weapons in my"own"phase to shoot is defensive?
The Machine-Spirit allows full use of weapons(at loyal LRaiders)
in a phase,when I'm already free to act.No extra shots there!
Tanks use also tlos,can fire only at a target my weapons angles
can swivel to.
Place your mini in front and no sponson can aim at.

Field more Land Raiders

That armies break rules is not new, its what makes them special in the first place. Remember how many people got slightly angry when it was revealed that space marines could deep-strike even if the mission wouldn't allow such a thing? If Guard gets to use sponsons as defensive weapons all I can say is

I agree, who cares if the LR can now move and fire, for its ludicrous points value it needs to be good. and John, you play marines, why are you complaining?

I would like to see peopl actually field land raiders who aren't little kids. I know it would giv eme a reason to finish painting mine and finally put it on the table. Hell, i might even buy two more (have all three variants) and finally do the mechanized terminator army i always thought about putting together.

Though with Terminator squads rumored to be limited to 5 men now, why bother with the LRC?

Seems odd to me, limiting Terminators to 5, doing away with retinues (Command Squads included?).

The way the GW pendulum works, I'm surprised that crew capacities on the LRC are essentially taking the hit.

You can always shove in a ten-man veterans squad with a tacked on character, or is this silly thinking?

Alpharius wrote:Though with Terminator squads rumored to be limited to 5 men now, why bother with the LRC?

Seems odd to me, limiting Terminators to 5, doing away with retinues (Command Squads included?).

The way the GW pendulum works, I'm surprised that crew capacities on the LRC are essentially taking the hit.

Now the LRC returns to BT only. (more termies,15 men squads,...). :S

1hadhq wrote:Now the LRC returns to BT only. (more termies,15 men squads,...). :S

I wouldn't necessarily say that - characters in Terminator armor aren't the most popular in the world, but there's still utility in LRCs for a 5-man Terminator Squad with a character attached (I'm looking at you, TLC Belial with a Deathwing Squad).

Death By Monkeys wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Now the LRC returns to BT only. (more termies,15 men squads,...). :S

I wouldn't necessarily say that - characters in Terminator armor aren't the most popular in the world, but there's still utility in LRCs for a 5-man Terminator Squad with a character attached (I'm looking at you, TLC Belial with a Deathwing Squad).

So termies "not common" ,but going for belial and termies... :S

DA termies should deepstrike to a position already marked by ravenwingbikes.

Crusader works fine for 10 men plus IC's (up to 3) or BT 14+chaplain.
As DA you cannot "group" IC (as current C: SM)!

What do you expect from belial+5 Termies?

1hadhq wrote:So termies "not common" ,but going for belial and termies... :S

DA termies should deepstrike to a position already marked by ravenwingbikes.

Crusader works fine for 10 men plus IC's (up to 3) or BT 14+chaplain.
As DA you cannot "group" IC (as current C: SM)!

What do you expect from belial+5 Termies?

Nah, I wasn't saying it was common, but I don't think the LRC will be solely relegated to the BTs. And while the DA can't have Chaplains or Librarians attached to a "Command Squad", the DA's Chaplains and Librarians are still independent characters that can join a unit. So you could have a pretty useful squad of Belial, a Chaplain, and 5 TLC Terminators loaded up in a LRC.

As far as how DW "should" be used, there's lots of different ways to get good utility out of them. Using DWA and RW bikes to bring them in is just one.

This is all pretty far off topic from being a discussion of further IG rumors, though...

Suppose the Leman Russ had the Relentless special rule?

you can now add a character to a squad before the game starts, to you can toss a termy character in with a 5 man squad and they start in the same trasport.

I guess this is their way of restricting LRC use to only Templars without removing the option entirely.

Finally, my BT Terminator Command Squads will be shown more love...

CK

Back to topic:
IG had before HH some Land Raiders.
Now two chassis are IG's workhorse: leman russ and chimera.

Has the new IG dex more variants? (exterminator/vanquisher)?

Ekranoplan wrote:Suppose the Leman Russ had the Relentless special rule?

All vehicles have the Relentless rule - it's what allows them to fire heavy weapons when they move, and also allows vehicles with rapid-fire weapons to shoot those as if they were stationary.

If IG Sponsons counted as Defensive Weapons in the new 'Dex, I'd be happy.

Agreed! QFT!

jfrazell wrote:Vanquishers baby. The world is not right without vanquishers.

A nice compromise-twin linked H. stubbers in the sponsons. Not too powerful but still get to shoot.

I'd be happy with just defensive HB and HF sponsons. Sure defensive multi-meltas and plasma cannon sponsons on Russ Demolishers would be great, but everyone else would complain. Plasma cannons are blast weapons, so according to 5th ED rules, they scatter, rather than miss. Horde players, and probably marine players too, will scream and yell until they pass out. I usually don't care if other players complain, seeing how IG seems to usually get the short end of the stick, but it does seem a bit over powered. The Demolisher would be able to push foward 6" a turn, open up with a hull mounted lascannon (Or heavy bolter) and both sponson plasma cannons until Mr. Blasty, the Demolisher Cannon, gets in range and annihilates whatever it shoots at. And of course vehicles in 5th are much harder to destroy...

Yeah, as an IG player, I'd love an "all sponsons are defensive rule," but looking at balance, I'd rather have only heavy bolter and heavy flamer sponsons count as defensive.

I don’t think there’s really a single arbitrary rule that’ll produce entirely satisfactory set of defensive weapons. Any strength value, on a sponson or not, it doesn’t matter, there’s going to be weapons that deserve to be made defensive that aren’t, and weapons that shouldn’t be defensive but are.

The best design option is to go codex by codex, unit by unit, declaring a weapon upgrade as defensive or not. This would allow GW to price weapons and tanks appropriately in each new codex.

It’d also make the harshness of the current St 4 defensive weapons rule make a little sense, as it was part of a plan to have vehicles balanced (somewhat) on the release of the new ruleset. As each codex is released in turn, the weapons for each vehicle are classified as heavy or not, as priced appropriately. That is hopelessly optimistic, I know.

You'd consider that a rule allowing sponsons to always fire - given that sponsons are usually on a tank's flanks, in order to defend it - is somehow arbitrary?

BYE

I know nostalgizing is somewhat odious, but I harken back to the days of 2E, where sponsons could choose their targets separately. That made logical sense, though under current rules, it'd multiply the threat a single Leman Russ poses. You could have a single tank engage 2-3 units every turn. I guess if I want to do that, I could just convert a Russ into a Malcador.

Case-by-case defensive weapons assignments would, in my opinion, be a good idea. That way, it'd just be a characteristic of a vehicle, like access points or weapon mounts.

Can someone post a consolidated list of the rumors for IG?

mmm

never understood why they didnt go for 'racial traits', so as said above this would allow them more flexibilty to modify things like defensive weapon str making it more appropriate to race/tech

Is there a reason to fix defensive to a weapon and classify it by str?

Defensive is : defensive against everything or defensive against infantry (or footsloggers in general). ?

When only infantry is meant, it would be better to take armor penetration as base stat.

Sponsons have a disadvantage = only 90 ° (IG) or 180° (some SM) "field of death"

well most of the fluff i have read says that most space marine vehicles have a crew of 2(gunner and driver), while guard vehicles have drivers and gunners for every weapon.....so i would hope that if they take away the sponsons while moving then maybe they will let every gunner shoot a different target if the vehicle remains stationary......more bang for your buck lol

Having the sponsons fire at different targets would slow the game down, not by much but you catch my drift. GW is vehemently against anything that will slow down the flow of a battle.