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.

I've been thinking about this for a while , tank (including hell hound or chimeira ) can choose to self destruct , if the vehicle gets an imobilised result they can choose to up the result to explodes and role 2d6 to replicate commanders trying to take some enemies witth them , if you chose to do the same to a valk , it would role 1 d6 and role for scatter , im not a guard player , what do people think.

IG Commanders wouldn't sacrifice vehicles like that. And just because they are immobilised dosen't mean they're useless.

"My Leman Russ has become immobilised on Turn 1. It is nowhere near any enemies yet I feel I must sacrifice it, to take some enemies with me."

Just dosen't seem like a necessary rule.

Maybe you could change the idea to a "suicide vehicle": something like a Chimera which is filled with explosives and sent towards the enemy. There is already something called the Cyclops which follows that idea. You may want to check that out.

Valk

its an option , the commander wouldnt have to destro the vehicle , but if you wanted to you could.

blackclaw1 wrote:its an option , the commander wouldnt have to destro the vehicle , but if you wanted to you could.

Still seems like a bad option. If my Russ was immobilised I would rather let it stay dead-in-the-water than detonate it. Immobilised vehicles can still do plenty of things: block LoS, provide cover saves, fire weapons, contest objectives, etc...

I don't think it's a great idea. The tanks for IG are WAY more valuable than a handfull of lives (in fluff and in game).

Maybe it could be an upgrade for IG vehicles, and they could explode when they were immobilized or any IG shooting phase after it has been immobilized (assuming of course, it was still immobilized). The explosion would be 2d6, at S4, and AP 5. I think that would be better.

Nah.. they're much more likely to drug up some guardsmen, strap pre-primed demolition packs to their backs, and push them out of a valkyrie when strafing the enemy.

I think it could work. Ina win at all costs battle a tank might be worth sacrificing. It would probbaly be better in a campaign setting were detonating them removes all chance of salvaging them.
It could also be built as a seperate unit. In WWII the japs used special gliders that they just aimed at the enemy. You could have a smaller, lower armoured version, that if it gets as far as the enemy lines can detonate it's self.

tp_1983 wrote:I think it could work. Ina win at all costs battle a tank might be worth sacrificing. It would probbaly be better in a campaign setting were detonating them removes all chance of salvaging them.
It could also be built as a seperate unit. In WWII the japs used special gliders that they just aimed at the enemy. You could have a smaller, lower armoured version, that if it gets as far as the enemy lines can detonate it's self.

And you wonder why the Japanese lost?

Seriously, the idea isn't half bad for a campaign setting (battle lines being overrun, a desperate commander detonates the tank as a last-resort option.), but with that said...it's a bit too dramatic to have in possibly every game.

I like the idea of the suicide troopers more than the suicide tank...it even seems more fluffy that way. I think it would be a nice penal legion rule. I think bum-rushing a squad of ten men across the board towards a farseer or a termi squad and then having them go boom would be quite strategically entertaining.

"Expendable." Sounds like Grots. Orks should have a rule where they can open fire into close combat when grots are involved...

CrashUSAR wrote:I like the idea of the suicide troopers more than the suicide tank...it even seems more fluffy that way. I think it would be a nice penal legion rule. I think bum-rushing a squad of ten men across the board towards a farseer or a termi squad and then having them go boom would be quite strategically entertaining.

I always wondered there is no penal legion "expendable guys who also have a detpack" for IG.

As a possibilty only a single tank or tank squadron can have his rule ,at a points cost per tank.

maybe he could do it to infantry. c:

Yeah, not a big fan myself.

Firstly, LRBTs are never "expendable", unlike, say, conscripts.

Secondly, it doesn't fit well fluff-wise. I mean, you can't shoot into a unit locked in close combat because the models are appropriately concerned about the lives of their fellow comrades. Likewise, they would be appropriately concerned for their own lives if they were told to self-destruct. It's like, you'd need a commissar in every tank just to make sure the guy pressed the button.

Also, I don't know when I'd ever use this, as only very rarely do I have immobilized tanks that aren't also next to a bunch of my own men, and guard like getting caught in vehicle explosions much less than most other armies.

Tanks are valuable, but they get scuttled when immobilised all the time to prevent them falling into enemy hands. When you're fighting orks or traitor guardsmen it makes a lot of sense to destroy your tank instead of seeing the enemy gain control of it.

That wouldn't normally involve a big ass explosion, but this is 40K. I don't mind the idea as a commander making sure the enemy doesn't get to take his tank.

This reminds me of a time when a hive tyrant destroyed my chimera on a roll of 6 in close combat. The hive tyrant got terrible rolls, took his last wound and died.

first of all, fluff-wise, the Leman Russ was designed to be easily repaired without having techpriests and such on the field, those that can't be repaired can be used for parts on another tank. this if for long drawn out wars where you can't relly on allied reinforcments, also, if they really need it the Leman Russ can run on civilian fuels. blowing up one of you own tanks will basically make sure you won't get any useful pieces out of it

second, if you want your vehicles to blow up some enemies then you should consider some Ork Trukks. causes less damge to pasengers when it blows up and can go out of control, straight into enemies (or allies!)

and lastly find Tank pilots (who feel indestructible a lot of the time) who would actually consider blowing themselves up when they could just, I don't know, throw a shell, maybe a demo charge if they have one, out an exit and let the shrapnel just patter off what's left of the hull

Suicide vehicles get brought up all of the time for Guard players and they just don't fit. Lemun Russ? No. Hellhound varient? Probably not. Chimera? Maybe. But most Guad players would keep the immobile turrent rather then have the crater in the ground. If the tank commander were to blow up his tank then this would be well after the battle has been lost, not in the middle of it. Probably when the enemy are moving in to strip the tank for parts or search for prisoners. This is also a tech heresy.

Way way way back when, Hellhounds used to blow up something like twice as big no matter what vehicle destroyed result was rolled. The stratagy with these was to run up fast and tankshock into a crowd of infantry, if they survived and ran you were right there to light them up. If they stood their ground then they were dead anyway. Overall this made the Hellhound less usefull then it is now because it would just as often get popped on your side of the board and take out your own troops so I would say no to bringing something like this back.

Currently they scuttle imobilised vehicles in squadrons.

Even if the squadron isn't moving.

I do think that should change (for everybody), vehicles in squadrons get destroyed if they end the turn out of coherency so you get to choose to effectively immobilise the entire squadron or to scuttle the damaged tank.

Scott-S6 wrote:Currently they scuttle imobilised vehicles in squadrons.

Even if the squadron isn't moving.

That's because the 40k dev team, as far as I can tell, got knowledge of military affairs from watching war movies and playing with G.I. Joe "action figures". As a result, the rules in 40k, i find, are head-deskingly horrible when it comes to sense.

I agree with the idea that the rules should factor in the expend-ability factor that the fluff seems to imply with IG, but as stated many times, there is no way they would take out their tanks.

I always thought that the IG should be allowed to shoot into close combats, I mean, sacrificing some infantry to take down the enemy sounds like exactly what being the Guard is all about.

ryanjh wrote:I agree with the idea that the rules should factor in the expend-ability factor that the fluff seems to imply with IG, but as stated many times, there is no way they would take out their tanks.

I always thought that the IG should be allowed to shoot into close combats, I mean, sacrificing some infantry to take down the enemy sounds like exactly what being the Guard is all about.

As a general rule, most Guardsmen wouldn't be okay with this. Heck, even the Last Chancers weren't okay with firing on other Penal Legion troops that were mixed in with a surging Ork horde, until the Last Chancers had a clear shot.

Che-Vito wrote:

ryanjh wrote:I agree with the idea that the rules should factor in the expend-ability factor that the fluff seems to imply with IG, but as stated many times, there is no way they would take out their tanks.

I always thought that the IG should be allowed to shoot into close combats, I mean, sacrificing some infantry to take down the enemy sounds like exactly what being the Guard is all about.

As a general rule, most Guardsmen wouldn't be okay with this. Heck, even the Last Chancers weren't okay with firing on other Penal Legion troops that were mixed in with a surging Ork horde, until the Last Chancers had a clear shot.

lol I agree completely that they wouldn't like that one bit. But examples like Commissars and Chenkov lead me to believe that their opinions wouldn't really be taken into account when the higher ups decide on plans. I mean, Chenjov used guardsmen to clear minefields.

Chenkov is a complete asshat, and I would never use him in a game. Truth be told, I would like to punch the dev guy who came up with him.

Granted, the Imperial Guard is massive enough that for every commander or world that uses its men as little more than cannon fodder, there is another that uses crack, well-equipped, highly-trained troops that are too busy monkey-stomping the enemy to die in droves. I think its just important to remember that for every talentless assclown excuse of a commander like Chenkov, there is a inspirational frontline fighter like Straken, and a brilliant tactician like CREEEEEEEED!.

As for using Guardsmen to clear minefields, you obviously haven't read much on the Eastern Front.

Ogiwan wrote:Chenkov is a complete asshat, and I would never use him in a game. Truth be told, I would like to punch the dev guy who came up with him.

Granted, the Imperial Guard is massive enough that for every commander or world that uses its men as little more than cannon fodder, there is another that uses crack, well-equipped, highly-trained troops that are too busy monkey-stomping the enemy to die in droves. I think its just important to remember that for every talentless assclown excuse of a commander like Chenkov, there is a inspirational frontline fighter like Straken, and a brilliant tactician like CREEEEEEEED!.

As for using Guardsmen to clear minefields, you obviously haven't read much on the Eastern Front.

I definitely agree the Catachans and Cadians probably wouldn't sacrifice their own guys like that, but I would be surprised if there wasn't lots of armies that would.

when you can recruit liteally billions of people from any planet, sacrificing 40 men really isn't a big deal. they're dying for the emperor and imperium, i'd be willing to bet its a honor to charge into a minefield...

the commanders wouldnt mind you killing a few of your own men, but the guardsmen who actually have to shoot into their own comrades might not be 100% on it.. Maybe if you have a commissar in the squad

But ya, I often play my LRBTs way back in my lines- its somewhat rare for them not to get immobilized, but heck, i dont care, a lot of the time they weren't going anywhere anyway. I don't care about their treads, just their battle cannon

Funny enough, this rule seems to suit traitor guard more than loyalist guard (as all souls are expendable in the eyes of the chaos gods).

Traitor Guard isn't always Chaos though.

CrashUSAR wrote:I like the idea of the suicide troopers more than the suicide tank...it even seems more fluffy that way. I think it would be a nice penal legion rule. I think bum-rushing a squad of ten men across the board towards a farseer or a termi squad and then having them go boom would be quite strategically entertaining.

They made these and I have the models, penal legion human bombs. Also I think a model (toy) of a person strapped with a suicide vest is something we won't see done again for obvious PC reasons