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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:how about a multi-melta or something...

IMO, this breaks IG tech, which focuses on simple stuff like HB, HF, Multi-Laser. It's a huge capability upgrade to a R24" S8 AP1 gun. Design-wise, such a Chimera intrudes on the role of the Troops within.

Back on topic, there are Sentinels which are equipped with the meltagun options through Forgeworld, so it's not completely out of the question that a melta gun be attached to the sentinel.

Actually, looking at the Elysian Sentinel model, it may be a multimelta. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/dsent.htm

@Bryant: For whatever reason, Sentinels carry much heavier weapons than Chimeras. Conceptually, GW sees the Chimera as a heavy APC armed only with basic Heavy Weapons (HB, HF, multi-laser).

Sentinels are gun platforms, so they also have Lascannon and Autocannon, along with FW Missile Launcher and MM options.

Different roles, diffent options.

I'm agreeing with HBMC here. 12/11/10, 45 points plus stuff.

I think it's kinda interesting how GW gave the Chimera 'special rules' (more like 'speshul') for whatever reason; not only are there 6 hull-mounted lasguns (which nobody knows how to use, even if they could do something), but the Chimera is also AMPHIBIOUS. It can cross water like clear terrain.

I know! I use it in like every game. Ever. Now, the Rhino's special rule, IIRC, is that it can remove an immobilization result on a...what, 4+? 5+? in the shooting phase.

Which special rule is more useful there?

Concerning the command chimera, well, I think it might be best served by cutting the passenger capacity from 12 to 6 (or 8, or whatever), but allowing to serve as a master vox (or some such). Only problem is it getting destroyed, but meh.

Back in 3E, for most intents and purposes, a Chimera was AV12/12/12. You could very strongly control which side the enemy was forced to shoot at or otherwise engage.

In 5E, a Chimera is effectively AV10/10/10. Enemies can shoot at a sliver of a side, or assault the Rear. That is a *huge* drop in armor effectiveness.

The lack of Area Terrain with which to hide those sides does matter, but you certainly can and did get side shots on Chimeras. IMO you’re overstating your case. The rules for getting a side shot were identical in 3rd. Enemies could always shoot at a sliver of side; it was just a little easier to hide them. They are more vulnerable in assault, but that applies to almost all vehicles. There are three I can think of with rear AV over 10.

WRT Wave Sperpent and Falcon, those are Fast Skimmers with much heavier (and more accurate) weapon options. They are far more mobile by being Fast Skimmers, more survivable by due to SMF, more accurate due to twin-link, and hit harder due to access of all Eldar Heavy Weapons.

“Fast” got slower. SMF became only available if you’re not shooting, where before you got both at once. A Wave Serpent is less heavily-armed than a Chimera; a twin-linked shuriken cannon, starcannon, or scatter laser is certainly inferior to a multilaser plus a heavy bolter against infantry. Though it is nice that serpents get the option to take antitank weapons.

IMO right now serpents are overpriced too.

Ogiwan, game one at the tournament I played in on Saturday had a Difficult river crossing almost the entire length of the table. My opponent was very happy with his amphibious chimeras. I think maybe a third or so of the tables had water features on them. But Danger Planet does have better terrain than lesser gaming stores. Rhinos can repair Immobilized on a 6, FYI.

DD, you are forgetting that the Russian technology is hunks of junk compared to US made tech., past and present. (Remember, the T-34 was a +Heavy Tank and the Sherman was a "regular" tank. Our tank destroyers were balistically able to tear through King Tigers, which were superio [balistically and defensively] to T-34s, in case you were going to try that arguement) I base this off of the fact that whenever American designed/made tanks went up against Russian designed/made tanks that weren't a third generation ahead (or behind) the Russian vehicles lost. I use Isreali and Indian wars as examples of this (yes, Russian T-72s[?] annihalated American Shermans and M48s[?], all of which were much older era, lighter, tanks).

As for the T-55 and its weight/armor ratio, you are ignorantly ignoring the fact that it was made in 1947! The Stryker was developed in the 1990s! Entered service in the 21st Century. Who is comparing apples to oranges or feathers to bricks? I think our little friend DD is! Not only are the materials used totally different! But the incorperated counter-anti-armor systems totally different! T-55 (actually, it was the T54, I'll say now) had none, save their hulls, the Stryker has many, not including "The Cage."

I 'stryke' back, because DD brought up the T-54 being converted into a troop transport by the Isrealis. I actually knew someone personally, still talk to him from time to time, I probably should give him a call later now that I think about it... who was in the Israeli Special Forces, a Paratrooper, who trained and operated with these T-54 transports, or the Teeran, as he commonly called it, and said they weren't preferable, but a cheap way of using captured equipment. Basically what that means is that it was a "Freebie" they got for kicking the crap out of their enemy who was using Russian tanks.

BACK ONTO CHIMERAS!!! When someone, I forget now who mentioned it, suggested AV12-11-10, I thought: "That is a reasonable, fluffy, and acceptable compromise." It isn't what I would prefer, but is quite acceptable and would keep costs down, so that more may be taken at reasonable prices.

Laying out Chimeras into the army, I would place only a few restrictions;
If you take them in Infantry Platoons, every squad must take one.
One may be taken as an open attachement to the HQ section; if deployed at the same time as the troops, any squad my start the battle within. This means that it may be taken as the one HQ "unit" for the scenarios where that is limited. So you could start a battle with a Troops squad inside the HQ Chimera, as it is a free roaming transports, like the Falcon and Hammerhead are.

@Mannahnin:

Under 3E, if I'm in the Front arc, I can only shoot at the front, even if I can see part of the model's side. If my unit starts in the Front arc, I can only assault the Front armor, even if I have enough movement to reach the Side. And even then, there's not rule treating the "top" as Rear. That's what I'm talking about when I say that there is a lot more control over what can be shot or assaulted in 3E.

Fast Skimmers still move 24" (you need to dig in the rulebook to find this). As far as weaponry goes, those twin weapons roll the same 6 dice, to try and score hits, but aren't penalized by Defensive Weapon limitation. Same as the Razorback.

I agree that Serpents are overpriced. Nevertheless, they are far more capable than Chimeras.

@Skinnitar, are you *sure* you know about tanks?

A T-34 is a medium tank, similar to the Sherman crusier. A KV or later JS/IS is a heavy tank.

The original T-54 is 1947+, but the uprated T-55 is 1960+ - please try to keep the two tanks straight! Regardless, we're not really talking about the T-55, as we're only interested in the fact that something like 100,000 of these chassis were made and are widely-available throughout the world.

The Stryker is a LAV which is really a Mowag Pirahna. So if you're saying a T-55 is a T-54 then you need to do the same with the Stryker, and properly date it back to the 1970s. In any case, the Stryker is fairly old technology, and it's going to be severely outclassed in the next decade.

We're talking about the BMP-T and Achzerit rebuilds with a heavy APC shell which is much more heavily armored than a Stryker. There is no shame in reusing a reliable, captured chassis for other purposes. In any case, if you count the Stryker as a Y2000+ vehicle, then for consistency's sake, you must count the Achzerit as 1990 or so, when it entered service.

If you look at the brand new IDF Namer, as I originally noted, it did not enter service until this year, so clearly this 45-ton HAPC is the way of the future.

Actually... the T-55 is only a modernized (1956 modernized) version of the T-54, which was mostly mechanical, weapons, weapons systems, turret was the most major change, everything else, main hull, tracks, ect... So, no, the T-55 was not a 1960's era tank design, you could probably modify an existing T-54 to be exactly the same as a T-55 if you really wanted to. So defeat there.

As for the T-34, it's a big arguement that is still going on today, the T-34 was far ahead of the M4 in design (slope armor being the main feature), so weight classing gets tossed out the window, the Sherman was also heavier mechanically than the T-34, had more "comfort" features, additional tactical equipment, ect... which added more weight the T-34 didn't have, so forth and so on. Many historians and tankers would consider the T-34 more than medium, at least.

Mowhag Pirahna is the accused "base" idea, but then so is the Churchil for Abrams. Are we going to say that the two are equal? Oh! The Model-T is also a wheeled vehicle, is that the base of the Stryker too? But then really, a tracked tank is just tracks draped over wheels with side synched wheels, so the Abrams is in the same family too. Ah! The Stryker and the Abrams are comprable vehicles! I think your logic is broken there, DD. The Stryker is just too much upgraded from the ground up compared to the Swiss Pirahna. The Stryker is based on, not a varient of, the Pirahna.

If heavier vehicles are the way of the future, how come the Abrams still weighs in around 70 tons, the King Panzer weighed in around... 70 tons! Wow! I guess heavier isn't necessarily better.... Sometimes heavier vehicles are wanted, other times lighter is better, sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother! Role, purpose, and performance are a bigger focal point for determining the design of a vehicle. If just straight protection was the objective, than yes, bigger and heavier is better. Now if you want to try and be cheaper, easier to tranport, more delivery options, then lighter is probably the option to focus on.

As for the Merkava Namer, it isn't a "brand new" tank. It is a varient of the Merkava Mark IV, hence that little prefix title "Merkava", which was developed in the late 1990's and entered service in 2004. And is a battle tank. You will also notice that this is another of, what is it, four now, your references to Israeli vehicles. The Isrealis, who have a lot of design focussed on urban environments due to their recurring combat and anti-insurgent/terrorist response in urban environments, where speed and delivery systems are not as imporant as overhead and close quarters protection, where tougher armor is a big factor to survivability, hence, increased weight.

Okay! I've been tempted enough with easy arguements! I am NOT going to make any other responses to such arguements unless they directly involve the ACTUAL discussion!

John has to be right. Doesn't matter what about, he has to be right about something. So he'll spiral off on tangents and red herrings and make strawmans just to get off point until he finds a point he can wear you down on before declaring victory - however small (or imagined) it may be.

BYE

OK, one last go!

OTOH, the T-55 was significant enough of a change to warrant redesignation by the Russkies.

It is interesting that you ignore the KV and JS/IS tanks, which are very clearly heavy tanks. Rolling pillboxes proof against most any German weapon, initially. If the Soviets didn't have KV/JS/IS, and Germans didn't have Tigers, and M4 actually counted as a true "medium", then I guess one could argue T-34 as "heavy". I count the M4 as a "cruiser" and consider it a light "medium".

Nice red herring with the Model T, when the Pirana - LAV - Stryker lineage is well-documented. FAIL!

Also, more herring with the Abrans vs King Tiger. We're talking about moving from <20 ton light APCs to 40-50 ton heavy APCs. Things like the Namer / BMP-T / Achzerit are considerably heavier than a Stryker.

And given that the US is constantly uparmoring Humvees, Strykers, Bradleys, and everything else in Iraq, it would appear that the notion of lighter vehicles isn't working on the ground. After all, if mobility were so good, why bother adding RPG cages and additional armor? Just be mobile and light enough that a HH-53 can airlift a smoked APC back to base.

OTOH, if every infantryman were armored as well as a modern MBT, then lightweight APCs would do just fine. So that is why RL lightweight vehicles like the Stryker stand in for Rhino in 40k, while heavyweight APCs like Namer should stand in for Chimera.

The Right One wrote:OK, one last go!

What'd I just say Skin? What'd I just say???!!??!!??

Like God-damned fing clockwork he is. I couldn't've scripted the above any better if I'd tried...



BYE

@ DD : This arguement about past/modern tanks and transports has only one goal for you, DD. If you want to continue this discussion, do it over PMs or find a forum where it belongs. Otherwise, I'm done with your off topic discussion. Let us stay on Chimeras.

Chimera : 50pts
Capacity : 12 Guardsmen
AV : 12 - 11 - 10
Armament : Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter/Flamer and Turret Mounted Multi-Laser.
Upgrades : Regular Vehicle Upgrades and;
+5pts ; Turret Autocannon
+5pts ; Twin Linked Heavy Bolter

Varient : Nemean : 70pts
Capacity : 7 Guardsmen
AV : 12 - 11 - 10
Armament : Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter/Flamer, Turret Multilaser, and Rear Cupola moounted Twin Linked Heavy Bolters/or Lascannon
Upgrades : Regular Vehicle Upgrade and;
+5pts ; Turret Autocannon
+5pts ; Twin Linked Heavy Bolters
+5pts ; Rear Cupola Twin Linked Autocannons

The Nemean (Lion? Not bad....) varient looks like it's a command track (7 passengers) and simultaneously a heavy firepower track. Frankly, I don't think that they'd mix.

If it's a command track, cut down on the passenger space, leave the weapons as normal, and give it some rule to represent the voxes and tac array. Like i said, it counts as a Master Vox or some such.

If you want a light tank, then I think the best would be to allow heavier weapons on the turret, throw sponsoons on there, and totally nix the troop carrying.

Mixing troops with extra firepower, doesn't make sense? Didn't they do that with the Rhino and Razorback? I like my Razorback.... I prefer the cheaper Rhino to carry more, but then again, I can have the bigger squads to put in them. Command Squads can't get bigger than 8 (5 norm. +Commissar +Priest +Psycher = 8 ) so paying for a full sized Chimera doesn't make sense, pricing it lower doesn't make sense either, making a new vehicle based on nothing currently existing doesn't seem right either. Making it "count as a master vox" is a fluffy idea, problem being, why don't I just buy the master vox for my squad then? Don't need a special vehicle for that, can model it that way anyhow and just say "yeah, that's my Command Chimera, that's all." Doesn't support the need for some extra "oomph" you lose if you are making your Command Squad into an assault team, which is why you have them in a Chimera to begin with. Seems like a fair vehicle if you ask me. Now if you don't want one, you can still use a regular Chimera and buy a mastervox for your squad if you want. But for those of us looking for a "proposed rule" we need something... proposed, not exactly what we already have but worse.

And thank you for noticing Nemean, which, in some versions, is the offspring of the Chimera in Classical Mythology. I thought it was a good twist.

H.B.M.C. wrote:John has to be right. Doesn't matter what about, he has to be right about something. So he'll spiral off on tangents and red herrings and make strawmans just to get off point until he finds a point he can wear you down on before declaring victory - however small (or imagined) it may be.

To be fair, in this particular argument, both sides are morons.

@aga, gee, thanks for your constructive contribution to the thread... :S

Modquisition: As a reminder argue the points not the personalities please.

So am I to take it that Aga, HBMC, DD, have no complaints or suggestions about my current suggestion for the Chimera and a "Nemean" version of the Chimera?

@Skinnitar: TBH, I think we're all just too darn busy sniping at each other and making snide remarks to think about your Chimeras any more...

Getting more serious, the revised Chimera is basically OK, but you're charging probably 5 pts too much if you're taking away the turret HB / HF options in the process.

I like the Nemean, but I'd like to see the improved comms as standard and a option for a conqueror cannon.

I would just like to throw in this old saying.

"in peace time everyone wants speed and mobility, however once a shooting war starts armor and firepower become all the rage"

Personally, when I think chimera I think BMP-1. Heck the BMP-1 even had ports for the ak's just like the chimera has for lasguns. Thats also why the chimera has the amphebious special rule. This tank is not a gun boat, but it should be able to certainly support the infantry. Thats why I like Skins first varient, but not his second. I also agree we need a command varient, with a smaller capacity, improved comms. No matter what they want to do, the chimera needs av 11 sides.

@foil: QFT.

@ Foil : NO MORE MODERN ERA COMPARISONS!!! Enough words have been wasted there. Especially on those Warsaw Pact POS.

@ Aka : Conqueror cannon is not in the standard Rulebook or the Codices. Not only that, but it seems a bit too uncharacteristic for a Chimera, which is an infantry vehicle, so should have infantry type weapons. Basically, in my opinion, it would not fit into or onto a Command Chimera type vehicle. Remember, a lot more goes into a cannon than just a turret, you would need a lot of space for ammunition, weapons control, ect... Then fit all the comms gear in for the commanders and accompanying command level equipment, and you don't have much room left for but one or two troopers!

I do not disagree that the Command Chimera could have a vox system, but you would just end up paying double, as any time the commander leaves the vehicle, he would need to have bought the vox to keep up the communications. Just buy it in the squad to begin with and leave it out of the tank's price.

If the Russ' main gun were ever fired, the Commander would be pulped instantly by the gun breech...

And I think there needs to be an updated model for the Russ. Only the Imperial Guard, Eldar, and Dark Eldar are using their original vehicle models still, and the Falcon is still a great looking model for the Eldar, and the Dark Eldar probably need a whole army update of models, but I've never really heard anyone make criticism of the models.

The Chimera is a decent model, could use an update, but I think it wouldn't look much different (I would like to see side hatches, though, hard to get ten guys to pile out of one door, even if it is a really big door), though the Russ should have a lower track profile, bigger turret, and generally not such a... well, French looking design. Just my opinion.

I have been trying to make a Turret kit for my Russes, without much success, but I haven't yet gotten plasticard to work how I want it to.

I'd argue that the Imperium would never invest the resources to make anything that carries Guardsmen able to stop more than a thrown rock (and a small one at that). This the 41st millenium. Human lives are cheap and expendable. The only reason they give the guard a vehicle is so they can keep up with the armor and provide an infantry screen to the tanks - which are worth something.

I don't think the intent of the armor is to protect the IG inside it. The intent of the armor is to keep the Emperor's most blessed vehicle running. You can always get another squad to stuff in the crew compartment (even if it is riddled with holes from bolters), but it's a lot harded to stuff a new engine into it and do all the proper blessings to revive the machine spirit.

That's totally aside. The Side Armor of 10 makes the thing junk. AV 12/11/10 would be welcome. Even plasma guns would make it cry on the side, but at least it'd be bolter-proof. And while 'in fluff' it might be appropriate for Marines to immobilize the thing with bolter rounds (which are something like 1 or 2 cal, iirc) by knocking out the tracks, it doesn't make for a better game, imho.

And I think the size of the vehicle is a little too big - if it was a little smaller, like the size of the rhino, I think it would help (and make it easier to hide those AV10 sides!). An update on the Russ and Chimera would both be welcome to me.

I like the idea of a command chimera. Maybe give it the standard "reroll one reserves roll a turn" bonus like the Damocles. It'd be great if it could call down an orbital barrage, but I don't think that's appropriate for IG. It is for Marines, they're coordinated. I see IG needing to fill out forms in triplicate to get the orbital bombardment, and even then, it will only arrive in three weeks.

And maybe a special Inquisitorial Chimera that does give the orbital bombardment (without using the HS slot).

I would say that IG aren't really into Orbital Bombardment nearly as much as they are into Artillery Support. Artillery is much, much cheaper than than missiles and torpedoes and what not. So being able to call in Artillery would be useful, interesting, and fluffy as a bunny.

I have never actually read about bolters tearing up or immobilizing Chimeras, actually. In battle reports and such, yes, but not in any of the real fluff. Though I haven't read all the stories, I'll admit.

The ancient idea that Guardsmen are utterly dispossable really depends on who's and what era's fluff you read. Lately, I have noticed, there are fewer fields and canyons carpetted with the bodies of Guardsmen as the accepted norm. I am not saying it doesn't happen, the scale of War in 40k us awesome, and whenever you mass your troops to prepare for an assault, you run the risk of them being all slaughtered by an ambushing massive force. Personally, I would like to see the Guard be more valiant sacrafice then the stupid ones, much more interesting really.

Skinnattittar wrote:I have never actually read about bolters tearing up or immobilizing Chimeras, actually. In battle reports and such, yes, but not in any of the real fluff. Though I haven't read all the stories, I'll admit.

I haven't read all the fluff either. But, it's space marines, and they can do anything! iirc, Bolters are like 50 or 75mm (but I can't remember for certain) - so it seems reasonable they could get some lucky shots to disable the tracks.

Depending on the writer, yes the fluff varies from masses of Guard dying in a single shot to the valiant struggle of them to stay upright against Orks, Nids, and the evil Traitor Marines. I think that reflects more on the individual IG commander. Some, like Gaunt, very much care about getting their men out of the war alive. Some others are more concerned with how much ground they take and throw men into the meatgrinder ala Russia in WWI and WWII. I think the quality of the IG is inverse to how quickly their commander will sacrifice them.

The whole "Bolters a X to Y caliber" where X and Y are double digits above the decimal being compared to modern such weapons is a bit of a misnomer to begin with. Remember, bolters aren't long cased, first off, next, they are rocket-esque projectiles with a relatively low velocity.

Next, as firearms have progressed technologically, so has armor and materials. So armor penetration, vehicle damage, ect.. can use the same arguement to say "no damage done." Essentially, your arguement is flawed and broken and shouldn't be used; EVER! So stop it! Bad nerd!

As for the fluff about mass numbers of such and such, Chimeras pre-date all that anyhow, so that sort of mode of thought doesn't apply anyhow. Lastly, fluff should only be a guide to the flavor, not the dictator of the game. If we followed fluff, people wouldn't play Guard at all, basically because they would just be tripping over themselves and dying, and there would be rules in place that would make the controlling player make poor decisions and allow mass portions of his army be wiped out. Fluff could be a goal, not a restriction.

Fluff doesn't equal rules. As I said above, I think side armor of 11 is called for and makes the thing playable. I know it's playable now, but it's obviously better armored than an ork trukk........