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.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commander Endova wrote:Slightly OT, but this thread got me thinking. Shouldn't Land Raiders and Rhino, and their variants, have Ceramite Armor, ala Storm Ravens and Thunderhawks? I mean, they can be put on Thunderhawk transports and brought through the atmosphere. Since they are exposed while in transport, shouldn't they have the appropriate shielding?

No. The thunderhawk powers it's way in nose first which would protect the transported vehicles.

Well, I made that up.

Judging from how GW think drop pods work (point at the ground and fire a big rocket upwards) I guess that's how they think thunderhawks would work.

(orbital dynamics - it really isn't intuitive)

I'm not sure I buy into that. I always assumed that Thunderhawks dropped into the atmosphere like the current Space Shuttle:



Which is to say, belly first, which is exactly where the Transporter's payload is situated. Even where it nose first, both chassis extend below the forward area of the Transporter, and the Land Raider appears to be wider than it. In both cases, Ceramite armor would be necessary.

Then again, it's likely that neither of us are astronauts or rocket scientists, so it'd be hard to argue these points.

That would be the sensible way to do it.

However, look at the artwork of drop pods coming in - they point at the ground and fire the big engine to accelerate.

Realistic re-entry is certainly not a feature of 40K!

Ok, so all vehicles have ceramite plating on the bottom. My question is: How often do you shoot against the bottom armor value? Just sayin...

Platig along the bottom would make sense, except the fact that heat transfers and the entire craft is subject to heat...

Surtur wrote:Platig along the bottom would make sense, except the fact that heat transfers and the entire craft is subject to heat...

Not with Ceramite.

Ceramite is described as having almost zero heat conduction and this is why it is used in all atmospheric entry craft for their Hull.

it's also incredibly strong.


it's also possable that Transporters have small Void generators to protect their cargo.

As much as a shield would be a reassuring item when I am packing my marines in their boxes, it would unbalance the game and be overly expensive...

Can we please let this thread die already? Thank you.

Why? it raises an interesting topic, even though nearly all the recent posts are very Off-Topic.

Because it's been discussed plently already in this thread, and the consensus has been that anything that reduces the effect of melta would be too much of a game breaker. Everyone would take it, and Land Raiders and other such vehicles would be even TOUGHER to kill than before. Melta exists as a counter to heavy armor, and there are plenty of ways to deal with melta. You don't need some fancy shield as a quick fix. A good players will try and keep their tanks far from melta weapons, and use cover and other such things as a way to avoid the attacks in the first place.

In short, melta defense shield upgrades would only be used as a quick fix. A point and click upgrade so to speak. It's more than possible to fight off melta without such a force field, and hence no need for one to exist as a 'counter' to melta, as such counters already exist.

^ Though it doesn't seem to stop Forgeworld *Points at LR Achilles Pattern*

What DOES stop Forgeworld? Certainly not common sense...

EDIT: on-Topic, I think that the forcefields are overpowered. The Melta deficiency is it's range. If you don't think that's a problem because you and your group play so close range...tell me how so I can use it on our guard player.

OT however, giving EVERY Land Raider access to this would make LRs almost an automatic choice for nearly any SMaTV..

Footsloggin wrote:^ Though it doesn't seem to stop Forgeworld *Points at LR Achilles Pattern*

And that is why that design is broken as hell. Land Raider immune to melta and lance? Not. Cool. Even at 300 pts its way underpriced...I'd say MAYBE giving such a rule to the Terminus Ultra might be ok, just given the expense you've already put on that tank, but yeah....as has been said. AV14 all around tanks immune to melta? Can you say the new Death Star unit of the century? Without S10 weaponry or lots of lascannons, Land Raiders would be nigh invincible.

And has been said time and time again, the melta already has short comings and counters. They just need some actual tactical planning to use and counter for, and praying for a quick, easy, fire-and-forget solution to the whole problem would really work against it. Sometimes, you actually have to step back and plan, and not just try to free up a few more points to pay for some new uber upgrade.

Chris! How dare you suggest using Tactics and strategy in our tabletop war game!

I'm calling GW right now and demanding that they ban you forever from all tournaments.

Sarcasm End

No, seriously, you bring up a fair point. Don't want my Fire Dragons blowing up your tanks? Kill them. I dare you. I double dog dare you, OOOOH, now you have to do it because it's a double dog dare.

(laughs)

My freind suggested that the melta defence would count as fireing a primary weopon du to the amount of energy used to create the field
also it can be destroyed in a wepon destroyed ressult is rolled.

IF it is implemented. I feel the LR would have to be still for the turn. NO movement whatsoever.

In no way do I like this idea, I am biased... Take that as you may.

true also perhaps it could a could also have a mishap table?

also dose not work againset melta bombs

then again, what about going the other way? That is, changing how Melta works, instead of how other units react to it.

Now now, hear me out. I'm not saying to weaken it, just... tweak it a little.

Such as, perhaps, making it so that it's not a straight-up 'within __ inches it has this much power, over that it has this much", but instead make its strength inversely proportional to how far away it is. You know, like an actual heat ray would be? That way you'd have a weapon that would not only still function as the 'classic melta', but it'd slightly reduce the chance of penning at classic melta-doom range, while basically giving bonuses to gutsy troops that get right up in their grill, and expanding the tactical uses of the weapon, since it's basically a variable-strength, variable distance lascannon. Waaaay out at maximum range, it's a paltry Str 1, but two inches away, it's Str 10 or more.

And how would the mechanics of such a system work? THe conversion beamer has a similar system, and as far as I can tell it's not used too much....it just reaks of too complicated to actually work.

I mean the idea has merit....it just seems like it'd be too hard to implement well.

Here's a quick idea.

Melta: Guns with the "Melta" special rule decide their strength based on the distance to the target. The closer to the target the gun is, the stronger it it. At a range of 1-3", the gun has strength 10. For each inch of range you are further out by, reduce the strength by one. If you are within 6" of your target, you may roll 2D6 for armor penetration (for units with an armor value).

To make it a table, it looks like this:
Range-Strength-Armor Penetration
12" - 1 - 1D6
11" - 2 - 1D6
10" - 3 - 1D6
9" - 4 - 1D6
8" - 5 - 1D6
7" - 6 - 1D6
6" - 7 - 2D6
5" - 8 - 2D6
4" - 9 - 2D6
1-3" - 10 - 2D6

TheRedArmy wrote:Here's a quick idea.

Melta: Guns with the "Melta" special rule decide their strength based on the distance to the target. The closer to the target the gun is, the stronger it it. At a range of 1-3", the gun has strength 10. For each inch of range you are further out by, reduce the strength by one. If you are within 6" of your target, you may roll 2D6 for armor penetration (for units with an armor value).

To make it a table, it looks like this:
Range-Strength-Armor Penetration
12" - 1 - 1D6
11" - 2 - 1D6
10" - 3 - 1D6
9" - 4 - 1D6
8" - 5 - 1D6
7" - 6 - 1D6
6" - 7 - 2D6
5" - 8 - 2D6
4" - 9 - 2D6
1-3" - 10 - 2D6

then what about pistols and multi-meltas?

Pistols are S10 - 2 for each inch past 2". Multi-Meltas are the table above doubled (24-23, S1, 22-21, S2, etc.).

Just to say, I would never use this, as it nerfs all Meltas (generally). But it's a thought to get the ball rolling.

fist of all snipers are capable of destroying LRs s3 rending

but any way THE RED ARMY has a good idea i tested it out in a game and it works

Da Sneaky One wrote:fist of all snipers are capable of destroying LRs s3 rending

but any way THE RED ARMY has a good idea i tested it out in a game and it works

If by LR you mean Leman Russ, then yes snipers can destroy them from behind if they are lucky.

If you mean Land Raider then no, snipers are utterly incapable of destroying a Land Raider without special rules. S3 Rending has a max penetration of 12.

Considering how powerful mechanized armies are already, something like this would break the game to beyond stupid.

Melta is supposed to be a counter to vehicles. Yes, it's supposed to scare the crap out of your tanks. Otherwise, no one would run anything but tanks.

Nobody DOES run anything but tanks. Even in footslogging armies, there's going to be at least one tank. And with the number of LandRaiders out there, yeah, I definitely see Melta as an equalizer.

But the thing is (if you were talking about the Melta range/damage table and not the forcefields) that, other than somewhat reducing the effective range against AV14, this 'new rule' not only is equal at mid-range, but is progressively MORE powerful the closer you get. Most people, if they really want to pop a tank with Melta, will get within the halfway mark anyways. This actually makes Meltas more effective!

BUt it does just make things much more complicated...why bother to do that? Why do we have to have a system wher every few inches the stat of the weapons change? I like how it is right now. No need to make things more complicated.

More importantly, I should note that most vehicles people take aren't land Raiders or Leman Russes. They're Chimeras and Rhinos. You don't need a melta to take down AV12 or 11, a lascannon or missile does this fine.

played, my opponent never had anything less than AV 14 on the field. But then I got to really cut loose with my KMB spam

Commander Endova wrote:Slightly OT, but this thread got me thinking. Shouldn't Land Raiders and Rhino, and their variants, have Ceramite Armor, ala Storm Ravens and Thunderhawks? I mean, they can be put on Thunderhawk transports and brought through the atmosphere. Since they are exposed while in transport, shouldn't they have the appropriate shielding?

Wait, what? They aren't exposed during transport, the Thunderhawk's hull takes the heat (otherwise the Gunship would be a convection oven for the Mehreenz inside.

Broiled geneseed, yum yum!

E:F,B! But still.

Seems to me the Land Raider is on the outside....