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.

The GW Open Day had tons of photos of Valks and Vendys

THEY identified the Vendetta as having two weapon mounts under each wing.

The new IG Codex states that it can have twin linked Lascannons (on one mount, if you have seen the FW kit), under each wing.

The Codex also states that a Vendetta can have Hellfury missiles instead.

What are Hellfury missiles???

According to GW at the Open Day... a Vendetta can have the Multi rocket pod and a Hellstrike missile under each wing.

Now the GW IG Codex says... no you can't

So on May 2, how do you kit out a Vendetta then?

If you go the FW IA... the Valk can not have drop pods AND the Multi rocket pod.... but their photos on p22 of IA Apoc do have both.

I have been with GW stuff ups for a very long time, but this one is taking the cake.

Confused Mik

Lord Castellan Mik wrote:According to GW at the Open Day... a Vendetta can have the Multi rocket pod and a Hellstrike missile under each wing.

Now the GW IG Codex says... no you can't

And the fact that GW is unaware of what their Codex actually says surprises you somehow?

As to your question, the Vendy has 3 TL-Lascannons as standard. You exhange two of them for Hellfury missiles for 0 points. Hellfury Missiles are R72 S4 AP5 Heavy 1/Large Blast/One Shot. Why you'd ever give up a pair of TL-Lascannons for a pair of one-shot blast Boltguns is anyone's guess, but I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the Vendetta's entry in the first place. It is interesting to note that the Vendy can have the same door Heavy Bolters as the Valkyrie. I didn't think it could, but it can.

First... that FW triple twin linked Lascannon pack is the sweetest piece of kit i've ever seen on a "chopper"... I want that soooo bad.

Second... the actual answer to my question is... WTF

How can anyone kit out a Vendy using the Codex version of rules... hellfury missiles don't exist and aren't even a rumour yet, and god knows when the FW pack will be really available.

So that means, either, you kit it out with the simple bits that come in the kit and wait for the cream to be released by FW... or, make Valks only.

Third... I'm not surprised at the GW outcome, once again, and I agree with you that the Valk came first 18 months of planning ago, and the Vendy was thought up during GW little lunch 18 weeks ago and squeezed into the Codex.

Rest assured, I'm still getting a "few" and will absolutly be kitting out with the six pack Lascannons.

Also... WHAT are Heavy bolter sponsons??? Surely they don't mean the door guns...?

Mik

Yup. The Heavy Bolters are indeed referred to as Sponsons.

I'll need to check my rulebook, but I think that if they had called them Pintle Mounted (which they technically are on the model?) they'd have an automatic 360 arc of fire, but being Sponsons, their field of fire is somewhat more limited?

But on the bright side, I can see Hydra's being more or less compulsory against Eldar and other skimmer heavy armies, on account of it ignores Cover Saves gained by skimmers moving flatout, and Bikes turboboosting. Take THAT pansy Falcons!

I'm waiting to see what FW does with the Vulture before I take the plunge on any resin Lascannon kits. I've got 6 Valks incoming, and, for the moment anyway, I'm going to build all six as Valks. I'll probably ignore the Codex and use the Forge World books for weapons (so they can have something more than "rocket pods and/or nothing", but no Vendettas.

I want Vultures over Vendettas.

Who doesn't. Is there anyone else out there who is insanely amused about how GW continously kicks forgeworld in the teeth by arming everything forgeworld did before them differently, and coming up with stuff like the vendetta?

Did you notice the wording for the Vendy weapon fit out in the Codex...

"The Valkyrie can be outfitted with a wide variety of weapon payloads, one of which is dubbed the Vendetta. Multiple Lascannon hard points allow the Vendetta to function as a dedicated gunship,"

So, based upon that... If you change weapon fitout... it changes the name??

I think, until futher documentation is produced, that it would be fair game to call them ALL Valkyries and once we have a definitive number of hard points decided... fit them out with whatever weapons are available from GW or FW.

Also, FW are going to release (eventually??) a resin Vulture body for the Valk GW kit... that will be sweet as well... an even cheaper version... and then... the sweetest pack of all time... the Punisher kit.

I'm also looking at the FW Drop Sentinel... the codex may not say that you can, but, it doesn't say that you can't either.

Mik

Codex:
Valkyries have one set of wing hardpoints.
They come with Hellstrike Missiles as standard.
You can upgrade those to Multiple Rocket Pods.
The door guns don't come standard, and have to be purchased. Can also upgrade the hull multilaser to a lascannon.
Vendetta has the same deal, just it comes with the lascannons as standard and can be upgraded to Hellfury Missiles. Which effectively converts it from a tank hunting monster to an infantry killing monster.
Again, door guns have to be purchased.

IA1:
The Valkyrie can only transport Sentinels, Tarantulas, Cyclopses, etc if it has Fuel Tanks. Since we're not seeing a Fuel Tanks option...I'd say it won't be able to transport any of them in the codex. Same weapon options that the codex has though.

Those are the biggest differences I've seen between the two. And the Vendetta still even gets to retain its transport capacity, which is *really* nice for its points.

And FW is doing a Vulture body, the pictures were in there with the Punisher kit stuff.

As we all know... GW Codex definitive rules are ONLY for GW tournie players.

Since FW (and therefore IA) IS GW (Yes, they are from the SAME company structure, not in opposition, but in tandem)... then 40K players can "agree" to pay with ALL the available legal rules - both Codex and IA.

So, if GW Codex and IA are the same for the Valkyrie (except for the fuel tanks)... then, in a 40K game, fuel tanks are legal.

Even FW has problems with their own rules... Fuel tanks can not be used with the Multi missle pod, but, look on p22 of IA:Apocalypse - THEY have used both... which means two hardpoints, which means a Vendetta.

What about the GW Open day pics of over half a dozen models showing "Vendettas" having two hardpoints - with the provided Multi rocket pod AND Hellstrike missiles????

GW provided and built those models not FW.

THAT is the point of my thread.

If they (FW and GW) are confused, why shouldn't we be.

All my gaming friends see the pathetic undertone of comparing and competing between GW and FW... It's the same company, the same stuff, they should have the same rules.

Sometimes bad GW developers, most times bad tourney organisers who refuse to acknowledge IA involvement (I know that it also relates to poor people can't aford the FW good stuff so it wouldn't be fair... ever thought of two games then on GW only / GW and FW (you know- smoking / non smoking).

Just my rant's worth... I don't and will never play GW only tournies... I play 40K with like minded players.

Mik

Banning IA for tournaments may also be done for two other reasons:

1. I seem to see even more complaints about FW rules writing than I do GW's. Admittedly, it's usually that items are overcosted for the abilities, which is better than undercosted, but...

2. Dealing with FW lists adds several more books the tournament organizers need to be knowledgeable about to properly run the tournament.

I've never liked the "FW is part of GW, so it's valid!" argument as it really doesn't mean that much. Company organization had very little to do with a game system and branches of the same company can and do fight in the real world: My own primary employer has several branches all over the world and we often find segments are in conflict with each other and sharing resources (even 'free' stuff like images and such) isn't easy.

Now, realistically I think it would be a bit rude if I never allowed a friend to use expensive and meticulously painted FW models that aren't in the core game, but then again when I and my friends play Talisman we often skip the expansions, which is really much the same thing: Sometimes we don't mind loading up all the options and accepting the game will take longer and may have more 'rules discussions' but sometimes we do.

In a perfect world any time someone said "A Unit can take option X, option Y, and maybe Option Z" it would be tagged somehow to indicate the context (Core (as of a set date), FW, etc.) so we wouldn't have these problems, but that's a problem most languages have as they're lacking in metadata.

I'm probably going to make four anti-infantry ones (Multi-Laser, Rocket Pods, Heavy Bolters), and then a couple of anti-tank ones (either with Lascannons or Lascannons & Autocannons... whatever I have spare in my bits box). When when the new Vulture comes out, we'll see what they're offering.

Balance wrote:I've never liked the "FW is part of GW, so it's valid!" argument as it really doesn't mean that much.

Then how about the 'Yes these units are legal and do not require opponent's permission' in the foreword of a couple of the IA books. Does that do it for ya?

technically, every unit requires opponent's permission......

seriously though, I've never been particularly interested in IA either. There are just too many competing and contradicting rules and units in IA to be worth it, in my mind. It's like apocalypse to me: fun, and very interesting in it's own right, I just have no interest in making it an integral part of my day to day warhammering.

H.B.M.C. wrote: Why you'd ever give up a pair of TL-Lascannons for a pair of one-shot blast Boltguns is anyone's guess

Wait, I'm anyone... I'll take a crack at it:

Alpha Strike with defensive weapons.

One shot though? That's pretty lame.
As for IA: If the books were slightly more reasonably priced I would be all over it.

The Defenestrator wrote:Wait, I'm anyone... I'll take a crack at it:

Alpha Strike with defensive weapons.

And you're willing to pay 130 points and give up two TL-Lascannons to fire these things once in a game? 'Cause that's all you get. These aren't rockets you can zoom around using every turn, you can use them once and once only. They're not worth it. If you want an anti-infantry Valk-chassis, get a regular Valk, take the Heavy Bolters, and take the Rocket Pods. They can fire every turn.

Now that there is a pic of the twin linked Lascannon offering, I see no reason not to "convert" left over bitz from the heavy wpn teams to make twin linked... Las cannons / Auto cannonns / even Heavy bolters.

As with ALL games... its only illegal if your opponent says so... as in they won't play you if you use X with Y, or do B before A, etc.

Isn't that the creed of all converters who don't play the shop version.

Don't forget that FW, through IA, provides playing pieces for the game of 40K using GW game rule sets...

FW does NOT provide any IA game rule sets... only stats for 40K rules.

And sure, once again, it's very confusing sometimes (often), but the players of a particular game decide which way they will play it according to any set of valid rules... If one player has a FW Valk and the other player has the GW Valk... what takes precedent... THEY choose.

Mik

Actually its the precedent that a new set of rules for a model replaces the old, hence the IG Codex Valkyrie will be the standard rule set. FW will come out with a PDF update to the IA volumes that contain the Valkyrie's profile to bring it in line with the IG codex one.

In that context... all those poor souls who bought or converted Lord Solar, or Gaunt, or the Last Chancers, or........ MUST wait until GW brings them back in the next Codex, or the next one... remember the Squats?

Mik

lCM let me borrow this thread for a quick question pwease so i dont have to make a whole thread on it :x

Lumbering Behemoth for LRs, it allows LR to fire ALL its weapon including ordanance aslong as it moves under 6 inches correct?


Thanks :"D

No such rule for a LR.

Its on page 48 though

LR referring to Leman Russ, not the more common Land Raider. Edited for my confusion.

So I flipped briefly through the main rulebook and it seems to imply that sponson LOS is pretty much "whatever it can traverse to see, or could traverse to see if you didnt glue the sponsons in place".

So basically, the "sponson" door gunners with HB dont have much of a fire arc. 45 degrees to the side, basically?

So assuming the TL Lascannons, Hellstikes, Hellfurys, rocket pods, ML, and/or Lascannons are mounted forward (hence 45 degrees forward)... how often will the door gunners get to shoot their HB, barring immobilization or other largely irrelevant situations.

Oo i see the confusion , its Leman Russ .
my question is with Lumbering behemoth rule , assuming it has: 1 battle cannon + 3 heavy bolters.

Can it fire ALL 4 weapons if it moves 6 inches or less?

Thanks

Luna... p48 of the 5ed IG Codex states "xxxx as you imply, xxxx however...". (edited to stay legal)

One is Combat speed, the other is Cruising speed.

Mik

Yes, the special rule states the turret weapon, overriding the BGB rule for Ordinance.

MK, you might want to edit your post, as its a non-released codex and you have a direct rules quote.

Ivan... The way the HB mount is put together (from the photos) It looks like they could swing inwards and be able to fire out of the back... ramp down of course.

Not much of a use, but a bit more useful

Mik

That's the gist of it Luna.