blaktoof wrote:friendly game or not any conversions done to extend the model to have "walls" are obviously not integral part of the vehicle hull and can be ignored for targeting and movement purposes.

gothmog wrote:let me begin by saying that i have dedicated my life to perfecting the concept of Tank-Walls. it has been my greatest passion. the latest 40k rules have opened the gate to a strategy that i think will revolutionize the game as we know it. imagine being able to march groups of infantry through open ground with impunity and with complete fields of fire. imagine them always having a 4+ cover save. imagine withering firepower that obliterates the enemy defenses and at the same time provides cover for your advancing infantry, skimmers and other elements.

how is this possible? easy. it all has to to with the current los rules, cover save rules, the WYSIWYG rules, and the conversion rules.

here is my concept:

take a tank, any tank, and convert it into a mobile fortress with walls extending from the sides, behind the weaponry, so it will maximize its fields of fire. the length of the extension should be no longer than 12 inches on both sides, or maneuverability will be virtually impossible. however if you wanted to create a static fortification with teeth, a tank-wall with extended walls, both vertically and horrizontally would be formidible. and at a relatvely low point cost, considering what you get.

in order for your advanciing infantry and vehicles to be able to shoot, slits must be designed into the tank-wall. make sure they are large or numerous enough to give your forces (infantry, tanks, hw squads, etc) excellent fields of fire, while still providing them the 4+ cover save.

the strategy is to have multiple tank walls, advancing and protecting massed infantry and blocking los to your indirect artillery so it can pound the enemy with impunity. if the walls are high enough, the movement of skimmers can be interdicted. weapon systems can also be spread across the walls, converted if you will to maximize fields of fire.

the best part is that when the tank-walls are destroyed, they become difficult terrain that still provides your infantry an excellent fighting position and cover save.

all tank-walls should have dozer blades or any other upgrades that reroll failed terrain tests.

imagine a black templar landraider crusader tank-wall with blessed hull rolling down the battlefield filled with assault terminators in its belly. imagine what you can hide behind it. and i shudder to think about a necron monolith tank-wall.

this is the future.

this is tank-walls.

DISCLAIMER: this is part satirical and part serious.

avantgarde wrote:


Somefing like dis? (3:12 for the lazy.)

gothmog wrote:

what page in the rulebook is that on? conversions are fundamental to the game, as expliained in the WYSIWYG rule stating that all wargear and options and whatnot must be represented on the model. this rule does three things for the game. it keeps players honest in tournament settings so they can't claim crazy wargear options that are obviously not even remotely represented on the model). it keeps creativity in the hobby, and it allows players to gain access to units that there are no models to represent or the models are oop (like the seekers of slaanesh). i agree that conversions should honestly represent the model, and not be tailored to give unfair advantage, but who is to say what is unfair, and what is conversion? i faced a fellow daemon player not too long ago who made all his soulgrinders standing on their tippie-toes just to gain the height los advantage. his strategy didn't work, and i slaughtered his army, but i could not help thinking how foolish he was for taking a great model and making it look stupid just to gain a rules advantage. not my cup of tea. was that conversion? i cannot imagine that i could have gotten him disqualified just because i didn't like the way his models had been assembled. on the other had, i faced a dark eldar opponent once that had lady-bic razors representing raiders, and all of his darklances represented disintegrators. i woud only play him in friendly games, and even that turned into a chore. i mean c'mon. lady-big shaving razors as raiders?

i think this post is comically misunderstood. while it is true that that if i had money to burn, i would contemplate building the absurd tank-wall models, and even use them in a friendly game.

in a tournament, well that's another situation all together. as much as i love winning, i do have a sense of sportsmanship, and would never pull the tank-wall gambit, or any of the other "conversion" garbage i've seen or read about. there is an etiquette that sould be observed.

Mekboy wrote:And of course there's the fact that no-one would actually play you.

Reecius wrote:To the OP:

You my friend, are a genius!