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.

Does anyone have a good idea for nukes? I try to convince my friends to play Warhammer 40k but they always ask about nukes and I never have a good answer. So during an apocalypse game, for 6000 points, could a team buy a nuke with theses stats maybe?

Nuclear Warhead- 6000 Points Per Nuclear Warhead
Roll a D3, then add it to the turn number (ex: Turn one, rolled a so it is + .) If the total amount is greater than or equal to 4 than the Nuclear Warhead may be placed anywhere on the map, all scatter rules apply.

Strength- 10, Poisoned (2+) AP1

45 Inch Blast Radius

Special Rules-
Radiation- The area in which the nuke effected is now dangerous terrain and all terrain pieces are removed

Nuclear weapons don't fit well in the 40k world. Not only is the size of a small nuclear blast equal to hundreds of tables in size, but the fact that 1/6 of the stuff hit by a nuclear weapon could walk away unscathed is ludicrous.

That is true, maybe it works like a vortex grenade. I do agree that nukes don't fit in 40k but they may fit in a 90,000 point game.

Nuclear Warhead- 6000 Points Per Nuclear Warhead
Roll a D3, then add it to the turn number (ex: Turn one, rolled a 1 so it is 1 + 1 .) If the total amount is greater than or equal to 4 than the Nuclear Warhead may be placed anywhere on the map, all scatter rules apply.

All models hit with the 45 (except titans) inch radius are removed, don't try any of you invulnerable saves, remove the models.

45 Inch Blast Radius

So how often are you playing 90,000 point games? Or are you just putting ideas out?

nukes dont fit because the game is mostly objective based.

There is something on the ground you want.

Maybe its an alien artifact, maybe your civilians are nearby, maybe your communications are out and you are looking for a radio, maybe its your captured friends being held prisoner, maybe its take away KFC, who knows maybe its your home planet and you just like the ground.

In the 40k Universe, if there is nothing on the ground that you want, the attacker sends a huge asteroid towards the planet and high speed and it melts the planets surface or worse, destroys its core. Check the home planets of the traitor legions, how many of them are still around in the fluff.

Nukes, who needs them. We have better things now.

Exergy wrote: Check the home planets of the traitor legions, how many of them are still around in the fluff.

Nukes, who needs them. We have better things now.

well i can name the following one(s):
Chemos
Olympia

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

Exergy wrote: Check the home planets of the traitor legions, how many of them are still around in the fluff.

Nukes, who needs them. We have better things now.

well i can name the following one(s):
Chemos
Olympia

and Nostramo, Barabrus, Prospero, Cthonia, Colchis
The alpha legion and world eaters have no listed homeworld, still 7/9 traitor planets gone for sure aint bad.
The Dark Angels homeworld of Caliban and the Imperial Fists original home world were also both destroyed.

Nukes are kinda pointless. They are an outdated technology in the 40k universe. They are actually BANNED by the Imperium of Mankind, and besides that, they pale in comparison to a lot of the other weapons that the various factions are throwing around. Besides that, the nukes you're talking about, the kind that have such a large blast radius, are strategic weapons. You wouldn't go throwing those around on an active battlefield. For that you would use small-scale tactical nuclear weapons, which the 10" blast template could suitably represent.

If you really want to play with full-scale nukes in a game, then dump gasoline or lighter fluid all over the table, and throw a match at it. Done.

Deathstrike Missile

/thread

Exergy wrote:

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

Exergy wrote: Check the home planets of the traitor legions, how many of them are still around in the fluff.

Nukes, who needs them. We have better things now.

well i can name the following one(s):
Chemos
Olympia

and Nostramo, Barabrus, Prospero, Cthonia, Colchis
The alpha legion and world eaters have no listed homeworld, still 7/9 traitor planets gone for sure aint bad.
The Dark Angels homeworld of Caliban and the Imperial Fists original home world were also both destroyed.

Chemos and Olympia still exist, just Olympia is a barren world now because the iron warriors nuked the planet. Chemos is just quarantined by the Inquisition

chaos0xomega wrote:Nukes are kinda pointless. They are an outdated technology in the 40k universe. They are actually BANNED by the Imperium of Mankind, and besides that, they pale in comparison to a lot of the other weapons that the various factions are throwing around. Besides that, the nukes you're talking about, the kind that have such a large blast radius, are strategic weapons. You wouldn't go throwing those around on an active battlefield. For that you would use small-scale tactical nuclear weapons, which the 10" blast template could suitably represent.

If you really want to play with full-scale nukes in a game, then dump gasoline or lighter fluid all over the table, and throw a match at it. Done.

BANNED? where did you find that fluff? The Inquisistion uses planet-killing orbital strikes,....but not nukes. Yeah, yeah, becuase that makes total sense. NOT. Oh, and the 10" blast marker would'nt nearly represent the effect of a nuclear weapon. (fallout, side effects, etc.)

Anywayts, to the original poster, your friends clearly aren't the gamer types. They want an 'easy win' weapon, and thats not what 40k is about. Its NOT the point of the game. Tell them to go play something where they can achieve easy wins, without any skill involved.

Cheers.

Why using nuclear warheads when you have orbital bombardments ?

The others have it down, in Warhammer 40k, if you're fighting a ground battle, it's because there's something on the ground you want. If your goal is to just 'kill everything on the ground' then you can just blow gak up from orbit, or bomb them to bits. If you're invading, it's cause you want the planet back, or you want something on the planet. Not to mention, notice something...in Warhammer 40k you are fighting on a battlefield with the enemy maybe (on a huge Apoc field) a few hundred meters away, less if they're closing for an assault. Now, tell me, you have a tactical nuclear weapons. Do you launch it at the front lines in order to probably kill as many of your own troops as you do the enemy? NO! You launch it at the enemy's rear positions in hopes of doing more damage.

A better ruleset would be that if you bring a nuclear missile, you can roll a d6 each turn. For each game turn that's passed add 1 to the roll, if the number is 6 or greater than you may destroy one of the enemy's off map assets. (Aka, anything that isn't represented on the game board)

Also, to those who say that nukes are banned? One word: Krieg.

And finally, please not that rules for oversized OMFG EVERYTHING IS DEAD weapons already exist. http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1230511a_Imperial_Guard_Datasheet_-_Deathstrike_Vortex_Missile

Wow, lots of hate No I was just voicing an idea, I'd wouldn't want to use a nuke because like everyone has said; it destroys the purpose of playing Warhammer 40k.

Anywayts, to the original poster, your friends clearly aren't the gamer types. They want an 'easy win' weapon, and thats not what 40k is about. Its NOT the point of the game. Tell them to go play something where they can achieve easy wins, without any skill involved.

I'd appreciate it if you'd consider judging my friends after you meet them instead of making assumptions about them. Really, control yourself. My friends enjoy tactical situations, the only reason they asked about nukes is because if the 40,000 Millennia doesn't have some sort of uber death weapon then it would be -->

But anyways, thanks everyone for voicing their opinions.

It does have an uberdeath weapon. The Imperial Guard's Apocalype Deathstrike Vortext Missile, it's the closest to a 'nuke' that you can get.

And you're only getting so much hate because you're proposing the ability to use nukes in a way they simply aren't used, more important I definitely think tearing opening a hole in reality and then sucking EVERYTHING into said hole is probably a bit more destructive than a regular nuke. As is orbital bombardment. Your friends are right, there are uberdeath weapons, buyt they've gotten so destructive that you don't use them in the scales we play in 40k. If you play Battlefleet Gothic, you do get to unleash Exterminatus at least, so there's always that option.

Cortez667 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Nukes are kinda pointless. They are an outdated technology in the 40k universe. They are actually BANNED by the Imperium of Mankind, and besides that, they pale in comparison to a lot of the other weapons that the various factions are throwing around. Besides that, the nukes you're talking about, the kind that have such a large blast radius, are strategic weapons. You wouldn't go throwing those around on an active battlefield. For that you would use small-scale tactical nuclear weapons, which the 10" blast template could suitably represent.

If you really want to play with full-scale nukes in a game, then dump gasoline or lighter fluid all over the table, and throw a match at it. Done.

BANNED? where did you find that fluff? The Inquisistion uses planet-killing orbital strikes,....but not nukes. Yeah, yeah, becuase that makes total sense. NOT. Oh, and the 10" blast marker would'nt nearly represent the effect of a nuclear weapon. (fallout, side effects, etc.)

Here I thought it was common knowledge. Read up on the DKoK. Part of the reason why they are so repentant is because they used banned nuclear weapons to end the civil war on their planet. And yes, a 10" blast marker is more than suitable to simulate the effects of a small scale tactical nuke. People often overestimate the effects of some of the smaller weapons that were developed in the Cold War. We had nuclear RPG's for heavens sake. The fallout/side effects of a small warhead like that would be fairly minimal, and effects like fallout wouldn't really come into play during the timescale of a normal game of 40k/apoc.

Also, to those who say that nukes are banned? One word: Krieg.

Read up on the fluff again there big guy.

They used them, and they got in big trouble for it.

Obviously there's that Chaos god Ignis-edax that eats nukes, showed up in the 40th millenium.

Whenever one used before it goes off it gets eaten by him and grows more powerfull so no-one uses them now.

This is a true story!

Look, I don't know WHY nuclear weapons are forbidden, but they are, at least according to the back story of the DKoK, so deal with it.

If anything... steal the Starship Troopers rules for using tactical nukes and mod them to fit the 40k damage table.

They were very beefy, but overall fair.

**Edit** tried to find the pic of the 3d mushroom cloud marker that someone built for the game, but alas, my googlefoo failed me.

Vortex missile / Deathstrike ML. It's already been done.

From all the fluff I've seen, the DKoK aren't repentant because they used nukes, they're repentant because their entire planet turned against the God-Emperor. If anything, they are well respected within the Imperium because they decided that if the Emperor could not have their world, no one would. I have read nowhere that nuclear weapons are banned, and before I accept that they are I deman a page and book name/WD Number citation about where in the fluff it says they're banned.

Aditionally, even the Davy Crocket, the so called 'nuclear bazooka' was so inaccurate they didn't even plan to use it's blast as the destructive part. Those sub-kiloton nukes are really really very inefficient, and are best used as suicidal area of denial weapons. And even then, the Davy Crockett had a letha range of about 500 feet, and a launch range of about 2 miles. Except on the largest tables, the launcher would be off the map, and the detonation would probably cover almost all the table. This is why Games WOrkshop doesn't give us rules for nukes...it becomes a 'I WIN' Button, and to be honest? If i'm going to play a massive game I want to see tanks and infantry smash into each other and grind each other down for HOURS. I don't want some TFG coming in and placing a few models down and then saying 'well, I bought a nuke, so I'm launching it at you....and what do you know? Everything on the table is dead!' It's the same reason why Movie Marines were only useful as a fun joke....if they were an actual army choice, the game would quickly loose a lot of the fun value.

jp400 wrote:If anything... steal the Starship Troopers rules for using tactical nukes and mod them to fit the 40k damage table.

They were very beefy, but overall fair.

Mini nukes!!

But what about Cyclonic Warheads and Torpedoes from Battlefleets? I expect these are near Nuclear.

What about the Blood Angel home world, destroyed by

Ancient weapons of terrifying potency

Nukes?

They are there and definitely aren't banned.

There are (soon to be were) rules for Exterminatus, Orbital Bombardments in the DH and WH codexes.

There's nukes in 40k.

Why else do you think the game ends so suddenly after turn 6ish?

ChrisWWII wrote:
I have read nowhere that nuclear weapons are banned, and before I accept that they are I deman a page and book name/WD Number citation about where in the fluff it says they're banned.

phantommaster wrote:Nukes?

They are there and definitely aren't banned.

P. 12-13, Imperial Armour 5: The Siege of Vraks wrote:During the Krieg civil war, the loyalists had attempted to destroy the rebels using atomic purging. The planet had been wrecked as the mushroom clouds of ancient and forbidden weaponry erupted over Krieg.

OWNED.

There are (soon to be were) rules for Exterminatus, Orbital Bombardments in the DH and WH codexes.

They were just rules for orbital bombardments. Exterminatus weapons are on a whole different scale.

But what about Cyclonic Warheads and Torpedoes from Battlefleets? I expect these are near Nuclear.

Described as melta weapoins. As I understand it, they are thermal weapons rather than nuclear.

Aditionally, even the Davy Crocket, the so called 'nuclear bazooka' was so inaccurate they didn't even plan to use it's blast as the destructive part. Those sub-kiloton nukes are really really very inefficient, and are best used as suicidal area of denial weapons. And even then, the Davy Crockett had a letha range of about 500 feet, and a launch range of about 2 miles. Except on the largest tables, the launcher would be off the map, and the detonation would probably cover almost all the table.

The first thing you have to accept is that 40k has a ground scale. An Earthshaker Cannon has a range of 15km (according to IA5), which translates to 120" on tabletop. Thats about 8" per kilometer, 500ft = .1524km, which means that a Davy Crocketts lethal area would actually be a small blast template, assuming a constant ground scale. I think its safe to say that its NOT a constant ground scale, otherwise an earthshaker cannon is tearing up just under a kilometer of ground every time it fires, and a squad of infantry is running .75km every turn, but I think it illustrates my point fairly well, that a 10" blast template could reasonably be used to represent a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon.

...That is one of the more idiotic pieces of fluff I've seen, but whatever. Guess they are forbidden, and I guess I can see the logic....if you nuke something then it's coated in radiation and of no use to you, and if you're fighting a ground battle you obviously want whatever it is your fighting over, so making it inaccessible is really not an issue. Then again....the Imperium could probably build super efficient thermonuclear devices that....y'know? Screw it I'm not going to even try to make sense of this. Forge World says nukes are banned so done.

And It's impossible to accept that 40k has a constant ground scale, literally. If anything, the scale of 40k gets more screwed up the higher up you go. If 120" on the table top is equal to 15 kilometers, then each Guardsman is a 125 mmeters tall (120/15 results in each inch being .125 kilometers). And if we accept 1" as equalling about 1.5 meters (average height for a human) then the Basilisk has a range of a mere 180 meters. So really, there is no such thing as a constant scale...if anything the scale gets more and more muddles as you move into longer range. So yes, a 10" blast could arguable be representative of a small tactical nuke, but I'd still say that a nuclear weapon is not the type of thing we'd see in ground combat in the 40k universe, especially now that Forge World has told us they're forbidden.

Though, I would like to point out that the melta part of a cyclonic torpedo is only the part that lets it burrow through to the core, but that's the only thing we really know about them.

This thread went to far

ChrisWWII wrote:

Say whaaaaat???

lawl
btw why do you want to nuke something if you can destroy a whole planet you don't like with exterminatus

jp400 wrote:If anything... steal the Starship Troopers rules for using tactical nukes and mod them to fit the 40k damage table.

They were very beefy, but overall fair.

**Edit** tried to find the pic of the 3d mushroom cloud marker that someone built for the game, but alas, my googlefoo failed me.

here you go

Incidentally at my store whenever I fight demons in apocalypse I get a re-branded vortex missile as an antimatter initiated fusion device every turn. It actually works well in game terms.