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.

Thing is, the VDR are simply ways to make completely custom vehicles, down to the AV and speed. (not to mention half the options are no longer relevant in 5th edition)

This is more of a change to how upgrades work- something like a wargear list for vehicles.

Actually, that would be a good way to think of it. Wargear for Vehicles. You have listings of weapons, and listings of what 'size' they are- maybe just use the basic Assault, Heavy, Ordinance listings instead of "light medium heavy"?

Twin-linked weapons would be the same as their base weapon in size class, but would cost twice, or half again as much as a single weapon.


And it could mean you could do fun things like putting DCCWs on Trukks and Rhinos, or put Wrekkin' balls or Deffrollas on Deffdredds.

BTW, I am a supporter of VDR, but this feels like it would be simpler to utilize and easier to implement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thing is, the VDR are simply ways to make completely custom vehicles, down to the AV and speed. (not to mention half the options are no longer relevant in 5th edition)

This is more of a change to how upgrades work- something like a wargear list for vehicles.

Actually, that would be a good way to think of it. Wargear for Vehicles. You have listings of weapons, and listings of what 'size' they are- maybe just use the basic Assault, Heavy, Ordinance listings instead of "light medium heavy"?

Twin-linked weapons would be the same as their base weapon in size class, but would cost twice, or half again as much as a single weapon.


And it could mean you could do fun things like putting DCCWs on Trukks and Rhinos, or put Wrekkin' balls or Deffrollas on Deffdredds.

Exactly!

Anvildude wrote:Thing is, the VDR are simply ways to make completely custom vehicles, down to the AV and speed. (not to mention half the options are no longer relevant in 5th edition)

All honesty Anvildude, that's pretty much all you and Robert are proposing here. "Custom vehicles" from basic chassis that exist now and given weapons that they wouldn't normally have.

I mean, people complain about Basilisks and Manticores now. Imagine a Basilisk/Manticore with the AV of a Leman Russ. That's what this proposal will allow me to do, if I didn't realize how ridiculous that was to begin with.

This is more of a change to how upgrades work- something like a wargear list for vehicles.

Actually, that would be a good way to think of it. Wargear for Vehicles. You have listings of weapons, and listings of what 'size' they are- maybe just use the basic Assault, Heavy, Ordinance listings instead of "light medium heavy"?

Twin-linked weapons would be the same as their base weapon in size class, but would cost twice, or half again as much as a single weapon.

All seriousness--what's the benefit of "wargear for vehicles"? There isn't any benefit that isn't offset by the ridiculous amount of imbalance it could potentially bring.

And that is one of the biggest things you need to consider before posting any kind of proposed rules. Don't make Dakka do all the work for you and your gaming group. Finesse it before you post it here.

And it could mean you could do fun things like putting DCCWs on Trukks and Rhinos, or put Wrekkin' balls or Deffrollas on Deffdredds.

Alternatively, you could do that by simply proposing it for Orks.

It makes no sense, at all, for the rest of the armies in 40k.

Um... You know, the folks on here, as far as I know, aren't in a gaming group. I know the folks at my FLGS in particular aren't big fans of homebrewed rules. So if that's what you think this is... No, it's not. It's just a bunch of folks posting ideas on a messageboard. For fun.


And yeah, I suppose it would make the most sense for Orks, but I'd be willing to bet that Guard and maybe Eldar or Tau would fluff-wise do it as well. Or Chaos. (Okay, maybe not all the Guard. I suppose most of them are a bit too, Hail the Emprer! for anything so heretical)

Actually, that's one of the things that always bugged me. Chaos. It's supposed to be, well, Chaotic, is it not? The marines defected from the Imperium, so why are they still using Imperium based weapons patterns and platforms? Shouldn't they be a bit more, well, different? So instead of playing Marines with fewer special rules and more statlines, you'd be playing Marines that have a completely different army style.

Personally, I think putting DCCWs on a non-walker vehicle just opens up too many rule problems.

Don't think it would. There'd be the initiative problem, but that's solved (I think) because a DCCW on anything but a Dreadnought only strikes at Init 1. Either treat them like Wrekkin' Balls, (strike during the Assault phase, deal a wound on 4+/use the average WS value of your race) or like a Dread that gets hit on rear armour instead of front armour during CC.

On the other hand, something like a Wrekkin' Ball on a dred would basically be a sort of poison weapon- Strength 9, hits on 4+.

And I think you can do it with the VDR, too...

Kanluwen's not alone in his 'naysaying' of this idea, it must be said. At least 4 people have said that they don't see the reasoning behind this...

Wargear options were dropped in favour of the much less complicated list of options alongside the unit entry. Why should it be any different for vehicles?

If you want to make a custom vehicle, why not simply make one, rather than saying I can only have ___ on this chassis or ____ and _____ on that chassis?

The only way I can see it making sense is as an alternative to the looted wagon for Orks; who would actually just grab a basic chassis and throw whatever on it.
Whereas most armies have vehicles to fulfil a specific role (read: efficiency) rather than a pick and mix.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea or anything, but I - and others - simply do not see the point of it...

And that's the thing. The point isn't to figure out how to make the game more efficient, it's to have fun thinking up what-ifs. Maybe try an idea out on the board if you want, but mostly it's just an idea. Just having fun BSing things up.

Like my original Ork-la-carte listing, which was killed quickly by people saying "There's no point", when the point wasn't to have a point, but to generate discussion on the idea.

I think that Just Dave and Kanluwen have made their point. However, who here agrees that we should come up with a solution? maybe we could do joint work, share, and compile our work.

I'd enjoy taking a landraider with 4 DCCW on it... that'd be ridiculous. But yeah, it's a little ridiculous and abusible. And unfluffy. Theirs a reason that the imperium can't invent anything new, and it's because they arn't willing to modify existing designs, because they believe it makes the machine get pissy.

I should've put "Dreadnoughts Only" after DCCW...

Well it would actually be a little pointless to put DCCWs on a regular vehicle, with current rules- mostly because 0x2 is still 0. DCCWs double the strength of a Dreadnaught in CC- vehicles don't have strength unless they're walkers.

It would still look hilarious.

Kanluwen wrote:I mean, people complain about Basilisks and Manticores now. Imagine a Basilisk/Manticore with the AV of a Leman Russ. That's what this proposal will allow me to do, if I didn't realize how ridiculous that was to begin with.

Uh... I might have misunderstood the OP, but you wouldn't be able to fit any specific vehicle with a weapon unless it has a weapon slot correlating to that weapon class.



I personally like the idea. Replace Valkyrie Heavy Bolters with Grenade Launchers, arm a Leman Russ with a hull-mounted Heavy Flamer... lots of possibilities without making the process overpowered or overly complicated.

EDIT: Don't agree with CCWs on non-Walkers though.

I_am_a_Spoon Is saying what many of us think. Maybe we can create a better VDR.

I will be compiling a VDR system using this Idea. PM me if interested.

Consider also that you're talking about a society in the middle of a galaxy-wide dark age in which machines are regarded as magical holy artifacts of the Machine God. Would the Techmarines know how to swap out the guns on their Predators?

I personally like this idea. Give each race their vehicle, and a number of slots or options (Heck, you could make Transport 10 a free choice that fills a heavy slot or something, so you don't have the headache of trying to figure out how much Transport on a Rhino is reduced by). SM/CSM would get the Rhino, Land Raider, and Dreadnought/Defiler chassis, IG would get the Chimera, Leman Russ, Vendetta, and Sentinel chassis, Orks would get the Trukk, Wagon, and Deffdread chassis (iirc), and so on. I think this has merit as an improved VDR system, since the original was apparently an abomination.

I'll try and figure the Orks, but I like your idea of making Transport Capacity something that would fill a slot.


Orks would need a Melee type slot, too- actually All could have a Melee slot- it would be 'bigger' than a Medium, for Orks- not sure about other races.

I know Orks tend to have TCs that are multiples of 4 (12 in the Trukk, 12 in the Looted Wagon, 20 in the Battlewagon) so make TC4 fill, what, a Medium slot for Orks? Or maybe an Ordinance slot would be better- or you could fit up to 3 TC(4) in an Ordinance slot? That'd work better...

Trukks have 1 Ordinance, 3 Melee, and 1 Light

Looted Wagons have 1 Ordinance, 2 light, 4 Melee, 1 Medium.

BattleWagons have 2 Ordinance and 1 Heavy, 4 Melee and 4 Light?

Deffdredd has 4 Melee, Kanz have 2 Melee each.

Killkannon and Boomgun would be Ordinance (there are such things as Guntrukks, after all), Skorchas are Medium. Big gunz are Heavy/Large, Deffrollas, Rams, Plankz, Ballz, Klawz and DCCWs are Melee. Rokkitz and Big Shootas are Light.

Ordinance weapons would of course either have a limit of 1 per vehicle, or, being Ordinance, they only let you fire the one, meaning you'd basically be paying huge points for an extra Weapon destoyed result. Other than that and the option of a Trukk with a Killkannon/Boomgun on it, the only 'problem' I'd see with this system is that it'd let a Battlewagon have a TC of 24, instead of just 20.

4 DCCWs? a CC monster, good for taking on other Dreads or heavy armour.
What Dread ever carries four close combat weapons at once?

I dunno bout SM dreads, but orky dreads certainly can

Using your things, could you add dakkaguns, snazzguns, KMBs, deffguns

Basically, adding a Vehicle Armoury. I miss armouries they were fun xD

Unfortunately not Dakkagunz, Snazzguns or Deffguns, as those are Infantry/Bike weapons, and you'd only be able to choose from weapons that are allowed on vehicles- KMBs, though, would be allowed. They'd be a Medium choice, so you could put them in Melee, Medium, Heavy and Ordinance slots.

Hmm... I suppose you could do some, interesting things with that. Such as a Battlewagon with 3 Big Gunz, if you sacrificed your TC. Or a Battlewagon with 11 Big Shootas or Rokkits. Talk about'cher Dakka Wagon.

Or a Deffdredd with 4 Skorchas or KMBs. That'd be nice, though you'd lose all your CC abiility( or at least most of it).