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.

Modelled a stormhammer for my SH company. But there is no ruleset for 40k games, so I thought about using VCR .

Vehicle in VCR:

armor = 14/13/12
speed = 6"
Ballistic skill = 3
weapons:
main = 2x tl-cannon => variant (insert name here): S8 / ap 3 / 48" / ordnance 2 , barrage , 10"
second = 4x tl-heavy bolter = s 5 / ap 4 / 36" / heavy 3 (autotargeters).
crew = commander, 6 man gun crew , driver , comm officer, techpriest.
Points = 750

rules for main weapon:

As combined set of 2x turrets with 4x cannons, these weapons are configured to fire unisono at the same target.
They use stats from the battle cannon but have shorter range. High explosive rounds will hit in a close "zone of death", thus providing
a big blast with reduced scatter.
Weapon is fired as ordnance/barrage. Barrage mode has reduced 1d6 scatter and counts as twin-linked.
Range is 48". Macro-weapon.


Would this be a viable take on rules for TL artillery?
Are the points right?
Use the old VCR or try to compare vehicles in apoc books to extract cost?

C&C wanted and welcome

I wouldn't bother reducding scatter with 10" blasts. It's not like you can miss with them anyway.

There was an old : "both turrets are linked together and aim at the same target" .
So I thougt to represent this by reducing scatter.

Maybe a 33% chance for direct hit is enough (personally it is).

Compared to a Baneblade (500 pts base):
+ extra Sponsons (+100 pts)
~ Autocannon & BB Cannon -> twin Battlecannon
~ twin HB & Demolisher -> twin Battlecannon

The Baneblade Cannon is 72" S9 AP2 Ordnance 10" Primary.

Stats-wise, the twin Stormhammer Cannons should stay 10" Blast and Primary, but I'd bump them to S10 AP1 to account for the second barrel. But, as they're shorter guns, I'd cut the range to 48".

Cost-wise, the base cost is 600 pts (BB+sponsons), so the only question is whether it's worth something to upgrade the guns. I'd say, yes, and peg the upgrade at 50 pts, for a total of 650 pts.

At 750 pts, you can take a Warhound with twin Turbo-Laser Destructors for Destroyer Blasts, and the Stormhammer isn't nearly that good.

On net, the Stormhammer slots between an extra Sponson 72"/24" ranged Baneblade and a 36"/24" ranged Hellhammer. The Baneblade retains the longest range, while the Hellhammer retains the negate cover. The Stormhammer simply has more guns that reach farther.


StormHammer
BS3 AV14/13/12 SP3 650pts

Superheavy tank; Stormhammer Cannons (x2); 4x Sponsons w/ Lascannon (x4) & twin HB (x4)

Stormhammer Cannons R48" S10 AP1 Ordnance 10" Blast Primary.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Compared to a Baneblade (500 pts base):
+ extra Sponsons (+100 pts)
~ Autocannon & BB Cannon -> twin Battlecannon
~ twin HB & Demolisher -> twin Battlecannon

The Baneblade Cannon is 72" S9 AP2 Ordnance 10" Primary.

Stats-wise, the twin Stormhammer Cannons should stay 10" Blast and Primary, but I'd bump them to S10 AP1 to account for the second barrel. But, as they're shorter guns, I'd cut the range to 48".

Cost-wise, the base cost is 600 pts (BB+sponsons), so the only question is whether it's worth something to upgrade the guns. I'd say, yes, and peg the upgrade at 50 pts, for a total of 650 pts.

At 750 pts, you can take a Warhound with twin Turbo-Laser Destructors for Destroyer Blasts, and the Stormhammer isn't nearly that good.

Used Old VCR rules, so to end up overpriced seems to be intended by the author. Any reason to cut the points into shape is fine.

On net, the Stormhammer slots between an extra Sponson 72"/24" ranged Baneblade and a 36"/24" ranged Hellhammer. The Baneblade retains the longest range, while the Hellhammer retains the negate cover. The Stormhammer simply has more guns that reach farther.


StormHammer
BS3 AV14/13/12 SP3 650pts

Superheavy tank; Stormhammer Cannons (x2); 4x Sponsons w/ Lascannon (x4) & twin HB (x4)

Stormhammer Cannons R48" S10 AP1 Ordnance 10" Blast Primary.

Sponson starts with 2 and has option to add 2 more ? Or just 2x2 as basic without options?

The main guns could have those stats.

Should i keep them as twin-linked ?

The old VDR ("VCR" auf Deutsch) rules will be quite a bit out of line, as they were tailored for a totally different gaming environment. Plus, they just don't have the notion for things like Apocalypse templates and such.

That's why I started with the most recent Apocalypse Baneblade as my starting point, rather than trying to build up from the obsolete VDR.

Traditionally, the Stormhammer is a fixed configuration with a total of 4 sponsons (2 on each side). So there is no option to add / delete.

I guess you could go with S9 AP2 twin-linked, although I don't know quite how that works for Ordnance Blasts... In lieu of twin-linked, I simply upgraded the template to S10 AP1 to represent simultaneous fire, for the expediency of simplicity.

They're called VDR ? ok. We have them as FKR and they are available from GW, so it may be a set of obsolete rules but they didn't
change their PDF's to 5th ed or take those remains of 4th ed from the interweb.


If a config is fixed - thats life. :S
Had thougth to use the options like a baneblade-entry in Apoc, but other SHT will also have no choice.
No optional sponsons then. Maybe a second pattern? FW and SG seem to use more than "baneblade", its often a "mars-pattern-XX"


Artillery => ordnance rerolls scatter and distance of scatter if twin-linked.

With a TL-cannon the chance to score a direct hit may rise.

I think the stormhammer will stay with a 10" template and could use S 10/AP 1.
The other APOC templates may be used with different weapons.

In English it's "Vehicle Design Rules", but they're quite old. It's not a bad starting place, but try and make a Rhino or Razorback, and you'll see that it doesn't quite work.

As I understand it, "pattern" denotes appearance (what it looks like) more than function (what it does).

I suppose twin S9 AP2 would work just fine, too...

Anyhow, as it's not official, you can do pretty much what you like and not worry. That's the fun of Apoc.

Things are overpriced in the VDR for 'balance', which is just a silly way of attempting to balance things.

Anyway, use the VDR, then take 30%-40% of the cost away.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:In English it's "Vehicle Design Rules", but they're quite old. It's not a bad starting place, but try and make a Rhino or Razorback, and you'll see that it doesn't quite work.

I know since I always read the whole article and had also seen Jervis statement about points in VDR vs Codices.

As I understand it, "pattern" denotes appearance (what it looks like) more than function (what it does).

Some baneblade-class tanks of different patterns by Forgeworld or epic have different sponsons.
=> stormsword : 3x hb + 2x lascannon (lucius pattern , epic) vs 2x HB + 2x HF (arkurian pattern FW).
=> stormblade: 3x HB + 2x lascannon (lucius pattern , epic) vs 4x HB + hellion Miss. (mars pattern , epic).

Looks more like changes of the weapon config. .

I think a pattern describes the Forgeworld where the vehicle was built.
Different plans and available raw-material may lead to a individual appearance but also to a different weapon config.

Could be useful to "invent" my own forgeworld to base different "patterns" on .

H.B.M.C. wrote:Things are overpriced in the VDR for 'balance', which is just a silly way of attempting to balance things.

Anyway, use the VDR, then take 30%-40% of the cost away.

BYE

The GW-way of balance

I'm sure 30-40% would be too much to be compatible with APOC.
A drop from 750 to under 500 would take GW's Baneblades over a stormhammer. :S

OTOH in a pure selfwritten list any SHT would drop in points.

GW's Super-heavies are over costed by 200 points. They're worth (and perform) to 450 point vehicles, not 650 point vehicles.

BYE

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In English it's "Vehicle Design Rules", but they're quite old. It's not a bad starting place, but try and make a Rhino or Razorback, and you'll see that it doesn't quite work.

I know since I always read the whole article and had also seen Jervis statement about points in VDR vs Codices.

Heh, yeah.

1hadhq wrote:

As I understand it, "pattern" denotes appearance (what it looks like) more than function (what it does).

Some baneblade-class tanks of different patterns by Forgeworld or epic have different sponsons.
=> stormsword : 3x hb + 2x lascannon (lucius pattern , epic) vs 2x HB + 2x HF (arkurian pattern FW).
=> stormblade: 3x HB + 2x lascannon (lucius pattern , epic) vs 4x HB + hellion Miss. (mars pattern , epic).

Looks more like changes of the weapon config. .

I think a pattern describes the Forgeworld where the vehicle was built.
Different plans and available raw-material may lead to a individual appearance but also to a different weapon config.

Could be useful to "invent" my own forgeworld to base different "patterns" on .

IMO, there's some mixing generations of vehicles between the old Epic / Armorcast stuff and the current FW / IA / Apoc stuff. I would treat Forgeworld / Imperial Armor / Apocalypse as more "correct" for 28mm 40k, while noting Epic / Armorcast for reference but with scale issues. That is, if you look at a FW IA Mars-pattern Baneblade vs Lucius vs plastic Apoc Arkurian, then functionally, they're all the same, but look different.

But yeah, other stuff is different, and I can't guess why. It'd be easier to make them the same!

I'm fine with those plastic baneblade, scale seem to be acceptable. When FW added the 2nd chassis-variant (shadowsword,stormsword..)
to the plastic SHT as upgrade there was only the (old) stormhammer and (new) stormlord not covered by a Model.
I will still believe we get a stormlord someday

The stormhammer may be also the first Tank with exchangable main guns I've done.
To Change them cost A few seconds and this SHT has either guns from my Datasheet or uses existing weapons by GW.
So its flexible enough. Should test the stormhammer-cannon and apply some paint on the Tank.