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.

BS4 13/10/10
Fast
Hull Mounted Anti-Tank Battle Cannon
72" Str 8 AP 4, Blast, 2D6 vs Armor
Pintle Mounted Heavy Stubber
Low Profile- Shoot at target as if night fighting is in effect when the vehicle is in Terrain or Obscured.

Transport Capacity-10
Tank Riders- The transport capacity represents troops riding on the back of the tank. If the tank is Glanced or Penetrated, the troops immediately disembark, in addition to whatever other results the tank suffers. They may shoot as moving while embarked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many points should this cost?

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Why BS4? And I would change the riders rule to something like if they get a Glancing/Penetrating hit then 1/D3 models in the unit are also hit respectively.

Drop the AP to 3 and the BS to 3 and 160 pts seems good. I would also replace "low proifile" with either free camo netting or maybe +2 to cover saves.

Nice model btw.

Mad Tanker, I agree, but a 2+ cover save seems OP for a tank, what do you think Low Profile now?
So-
BS3 13/10/10
Fast
Hull Mounted Anti-Tank Battle Cannon
72" Str 8 AP 3, Blast, 2D6 vs Armor
Pintle Mounted Heavy Stubber
Low Profile- May reroll cover failed saves.

Transport Capacity-10
Tank Riders- The transport capacity represents troops riding on the back of the tank. If the tank is Glanced or Penetrated, the troops immediately disembark, in addition to whatever other results the tank suffers. For every Glancing or Penetrating hit on the tank, D3 models are wounded. They may shoot as moving while embarked.

I like it, very simple but still still gives an edge over normal camo netting.

Reads more like a tank destroyer than an assault gun. Assault gun just makes me think of a turretless Russ chassis with a hull mounted battle cannon for a cheaper cost and no special rules.

Yeah, looks like a tank destroyer with a supercharged engine.

Wouldnt the Devil Dog be a better example of an assault gun?

Wouldnt the Devil Dog be a better example of an assault gun?

Not really IMO. An assault gun is pretty much exactly what Raxmei said. A turretless tank chassis mounting a cannon or main weapon in the hull. They were usually designed to save money due to not having to include turret control systems. It also allowed a reduced crew size.

Explanation aside, rules seem pretty solid to me

If it really is just a turretless tank chassis, then it wouldnt be fast then right? Especially considering the IG tank chassis is slower than an average tank. Also, what is the difference between a tank destroyer and an assault gun in this case?

As an aside, a SM vindicator would be an assault gun then?

You might want to give it the Land Raider's slow movement rule, if you're trying to describe it as an alteration on the Land Raider chassis.

Also, it seems to me that you might want to make Low Profile apply to the tank's shots out of cover as well, if only because the reduced profile also mounts the gun much lower to the ground and with a smaller field of fire.

If those alterations are made, I could see pricing this at 150pts, otherwise closer to 170-175.

the Laser Tank Destroyer is the closest equivilent(Nice Stug conversion , where did you get one the proper scale?)

If I was building from scratch, I would have it be a Chimera with a hull mounted Battlecannon. No special rules(maybe a reduced movement), but have it be pretty cheap and squadronable.

DevianID wrote:If it really is just a turretless tank chassis, then it wouldnt be fast then right? Especially considering the IG tank chassis is slower than an average tank. Also, what is the difference between a tank destroyer and an assault gun in this case?

As an aside, a SM vindicator would be an assault gun then?

Assault guns are defined by form, having a heavy, almost always turretless, gun on an armored tank chassis. The intent is direct heavy gun support in open battle, including on the offense. Many tank destroyers incorporate similar features to assault guns. Assault guns will tend to be more heavily armored to survive in pitched battle while tank destroyers will tend to have weapons more specialised to the antitank role and tend to be faster to facilitate ambush tactics.

A tank destroyer is not necessarily built on a tank chassis. The usual tank destroyer doctrines allow for very lightly armored tank destroyers. Such vehicles would primarily be useful for striking enemy tanks from ambush and would be suicidal to use as assault guns. The defining characteristic of the tank destroyer is that it is specialised for killing tanks. The main weapon is usually but not always a heavy antitank gun in a fixed mount. Tank destroyer is defined by function rather than form so there are exceptions to all features. In WWII the Germans built some heavily armored tank destroyers while Americans built some turreted ones.

The Vindicator is pretty obviously based on the German Sturmtiger assault gun. In the Guard the Devil Dog and Medusa may be interpreted as tank destroyers. The main IG codex doesn't currently have assault guns.

I agree with the others. Currently the rules make it look like a Tank Destroyer, but the model itself looks like an Assault Gun. Imperial Armour vol. 1 has rules for both types of turretless vehicles actually made for the Imperial Guard:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/i/IA1update28AUG.pdf
The Destroyer Tank Hunter is, as the name implies, a Tank Destroyer, while the Thunderer is an Assault Gun. The rules for both are pretty simple and can be modified with tank rider rules if you want to, and both can of course be given camo netting. Using the rules unmodified, my guess would be that no one would mind playing against them instead of regular Leman Russ tanks, as it adds some flavour and a little bit different tactics on the table top.

I'm not sure why it should be a Fast vehicle.

If anything, a vehicle that has to stop moving to turn and fire is the antithesis of Fast.

I would agree with Jefffar (That's a bitch to type. ) on taking out fast.