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.

Hello everyone I am contemplating doing something with my Elysian Drop Troops army and figured this would be the best place to clear up somethings in regards to fluff. now for those that don't know most Imperial Guard Airborne/Air Assault regiments do not utilize any treaded vehicles on either a Chimera or a Leman Russ chassis (basing this off the Elysian Fluff). The heaviest vehicles they take are Sentinels which there are drop variants of and the Taros Buggies which are flown in by Sky Talons.

With the creation of the Taurox and Taurox Prime however I potentially see another vehicle that would fit in perfectly with an Airborne Imperial Guard regiments arsenal as it provides both storage and transport capacity as well as heavy firepower then what they are usually able to bring. Also it also helps that regiments like the Elysian Drop Troops who have a high number of their own Stormtrooper Regiments as they have access to the Prime variant. My question for you guys is do you think it would be plausible in regards to fluff for airborne Imperial Guard regiments to make use of the Taurox due to its lightweight, speed an additional firepower it can bring?

There are three separate issues to deal with, fluff-wise:

1) Weight. A Taurox probably isn't much lighter than a Chimera, so the same payload issues are going to apply. If a Sky Talon can't get off the ground with a Chimera loaded then it probably isn't going to be going anywhere with a Taurox. And it certainly isn't going to do it while the Taurox is loaded with a full squad and their gear, so you're taking two transport aircraft (one for the Taurox, one for the troops) to deliver one unit.

2) Size. A Taurox is still a bulky vehicle, and is actually taller than a Chimera. So it's not going to fit in the Sky Talon's cargo space very well, and carrying it on a sling means a huge drop in maneuverability on the approach into the landing zone. And that means giving any AA weapons in the area a nice easy target to kill. A Tauros or Sentinel can be locked down in the Sky Talon's cargo space and leaves the transport free to maneuver.

3) Fuel. A tank that runs out of gas as soon as it arrives is a waste of a transport, and carrying additional fuel uses up your weight budget very quickly. Is limited use of a Taurox before it runs out of gas and has to be abandoned really worth more than a whole additional squad? Is it worth sacrificing another squad/extra ammunition/etc to load some of your transports with extra fuel drums, and what do you do if the aircraft carrying the fuel supplies you need is one of the ones that gets shot down?

When you consider these issues remember that a single transport vehicle isn't worth much by itself since the rest of the squads won't be able to keep up with it. So what you're really talking about is (at least!) doubling the transport aircraft your army needs and significantly increasing the opportunities for failure (example: what do you do if half your Taurox transports are shot down and your plan depends on having them to reach an objective fast enough).

Peregrine's practical considerations all apply.

There's one other consideration he hasn't touched on, however;

You have Valkyries. Why do you need a ground APC?

If you do need a ground APC, there's (in fluff) a transport variant of the Tauros that carries six troops.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You have Valkyries. Why do you need a ground APC?

Because Valkyries run out of fuel and have to return home. If they're dropping their cargo near the edge of their range they might only have a few minutes of flight time before they have to leave, unless you want to sacrifice them on one-way suicide missions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You have Valkyries. Why do you need a ground APC?

Because Valkyries run out of fuel and have to return home. If they're dropping their cargo near the edge of their range they might only have a few minutes of flight time before they have to leave, unless you want to sacrifice them on one-way suicide missions.

It's still one or the other, really. You have armoured/mechanised infantry with wheel/track APCs. Or you have airborne infantry with more speed/mobility and less heavy firepower/support in the form of flying APCs. If you want airborne armoured... well, that's what the Marines are for, I suppose.

 Anfauglir wrote:
If you want airborne armoured... well, that's what the Marines are for, I suppose.

Or a huge investment in transport aircraft. Drop troops with tanks are clearly better than drop troops without tanks, the question is whether they're better by a large enough margin to justify the massive increase in transport aircraft required to carry them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or a huge investment in transport aircraft. Drop troops with tanks are clearly better than drop troops without tanks, the question is whether they're better by a large enough margin to justify the massive increase in transport aircraft required to carry them.

And the answer, at least on a Regimental basis, is no. Otherwise we'd see it everywhere IRL. The huge investment in transport craft to which you refer, in this setting, is called the Imperial Navy/Holy Fleet. Why go to the logistical difficulties you outlined in your first post within a single regiment when the Navy can just dump ten of each type of regiment, which can then support one another in combined arms formations instead? The answer is: you just wouldn't.

 Anfauglir wrote:
And the answer, at least on a Regimental basis, is no. Otherwise we'd see it everywhere IRL. The huge investment in transport craft to which you refer, in this setting, is called the Imperial Navy/Holy Fleet. Why go to the logistical difficulties you outlined in your first post within a single regiment when the Navy can just dump ten of each type of regiment, which can then support one another in combined arms formations instead? The answer is: you just wouldn't.

Because you don't drop whole regiments. The debate is ten Valkyries full of troops or five with troops and five with their (ground) transports.

Honestly I am basing this off the fluff I have read in the Militarium Tempestus book as well as using modern military for example. Peregrine made some good points but if I may offer some different points of view:

1. Unless I'm completely mistaken I don't think they say how much lighter or what the weight of the Taurox is or what the weight limit is the Skytalon can carry. I am basing the idea more off of Armor Value and Hull Points of the Taurox and Tauros which they have the same armor value with only the Taurox having one more Hull Point. Also like modern Military Drop tanks outside the crew potentially being inside it wouldn't be occupied, idea behind the Primes being more of a fire support element and ammo/fuel carrier rather then an APC.

2. I could easily see a single Taurox or Taurox Prime being carried in by a single Sky Talon with the magnetic clamps holding in place part of a platform the Taurox sits on or even to a frame or part of the Taurox that can be released from the vehicle after landfall. And just like how the Skytalon hovers low to the ground to unload its Tauros Buggies safely it wouldn't be to far out of the question to do the same with the Taurox on a platform. I need to re-read the Militarium Tempestus book as I think it says they transport their Taurox's by Valkyrie but not sure.

3. Ironically its because of fuel as well as ammo is why I would think that the Taurox would be a great addition to Airborne Ig Regiments. while rereading the fluff in Imperial Armour 8 it mentioned several times how the Elysian struggled when their flyers ran low and eventually out of fuel and had to leave to go rearm and refuel. if I were a commander I would want something on the ground that could provide my infantry some serious firepower to make up for the departing flyers as well as carrying extra reserves of fuel and ammunition. And unlike a drop tank which is a much more unrealistic option the Taurox Prime is not completely out of the question.

Granted more data would be nice, especially as to what the weight limits of the Skytalon are and how much a Taurox weighs. However I'll be sure to re-read the fluff in the Militarium Tempestus book as the are nearly identical to the Elysian with their Airborne tactics.

Airborne regiments can certainly have armoured vehicles, but since they have to be dropped from the sky they need to be light (their weight depends on the strenght of the aircraft or helicopter and on the used dropping technique)
The Russian air force uses the BMD:

The BMD-3 is 13 tonne, whereas the Chimera is 38 tonne. Don't know about the Taurox, but if its weight is anywhere near that of the Chimera it is probably out of the question.

Also, fluffwise I don't think the Elysians use any armoured vehicles at all, since it is explicitly stated they can't drop anything heavier than a sentinel by grav-chute. I also don't think they need them. Elysians are not supposed to fight the enemy from the front or hold out in a drawn-out battle. Their purpose is hit and run tactics behind enemy lines. In such a fight, armoured vehicles are more a liability than an asset because they will be very noisy and unwieldy, as well as impossible to recover.

On that same note though the Taurox Prime is built for speed and firepower over durability and would fit with their rapid assaults and movements. Compared to a Chimera or Tank it is not unwieldy at all, if anything it's more like the Tauros Buggy in terms of manueverability and noise really doesn't matter when you have a couple hundred Flyers zooming around dropping off infantry.

Fluff wise you are correct the Elysians don't utilize any armored vehicles, however that was written before the existence of the Taurox and treating it like a new vehicle in their arsenal it's more of a debate whether or not that Airborne IG Regiments would make use of it or not. Stormtrooper regiments already make extensive use of this vehicle and the Elysian Drop Troops have their own regiments of storm troopers in their army meaning that they for sure use it, more of a debate if it would transfer over to the standard drop troopers as Stormtroopers fight almost identically to how Elysians do.

 gmaleron wrote:
I am basing the idea more off of Armor Value and Hull Points of the Taurox and Tauros which they have the same armor value with only the Taurox having one more Hull Point.

Those game stats aren't a very good way to compare them. Look at the models instead, the Taurox is a larger model and is a solid box of armor instead of a skeleton frame like the Tauros.

idea behind the Primes being more of a fire support element and ammo/fuel carrier rather then an APC.

Then what exactly is its advantage over a Sentinel or Tauros?

2. I could easily see a single Taurox or Taurox Prime being carried in by a single Sky Talon with the magnetic clamps holding in place part of a platform the Taurox sits on or even to a frame or part of the Taurox that can be released from the vehicle after landfall.

Get the models and show it then. I bet it can't be done in any reasonable way.

if I were a commander I would want something on the ground that could provide my infantry some serious firepower to make up for the departing flyers as well as carrying extra reserves of fuel and ammunition.

But they have those things: the Sentinel and Tauros. The only reason to take a Taurox is if you want an APC. And if you want extra fuel and ammunition just drop a crate full of supplies, you don't need to waste transport capacity on a vehicle to hold that extra ammunition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Compared to a Chimera or Tank it is not unwieldy at all, if anything it's more like the Tauros Buggy in terms of manueverability

Not really. It has the same nonexistent suspension problem as the Chimera and LRBT, and would immobilize itself in anything softer than a paved road just like the other vehicles. It may be slightly faster than a Chimera, but there's no way it's going to be anywhere near as fast or maneuverable as a lightweight scout vehicle like the Tauros.

Regarding the fire support and noise questions;

One: The Tauros is an electric car. It runs effectively silently and produces no emissions. The Taurox runs off a prometheum engine.

Two: The Tauros Prime has a light gatling cannon, an autocannon with hi-ex rounds, or a pair of infantry rocket launchers. The Tauros Venator has a twin-linked multilaser or lascannon. The thing is so hilariously overgunned it's insane. Its the equivalent of strapping a 75mm tank cannon to a jeep.

Three: The Taurox is tall. You could stack two Tauros Venators on top of each other and you'd only just be the same height as the Taurox. This is not a desirable trait.

Four: The Tauros has suspension.

You could probably engineer some sort of Tauros concept (six wheeled one) that could carry troops (sort of like a MRAP or motorised infantry) but it probably would not be well armored and not something you'd use in frontline combat. Heck its not really even something you want IN combat even armed (unless it's staying out of line of sight - think support sentinel). The Warthog was a horrible idea in Halo, and its not something to import to 40K unless you uparmor it (most wheeled combat vehicles like that ARE better armored, after all.)

That said, given the weight of Sentinels, it seems likely that one could carry and deploy a Centaur carrier or two (Technically there is a precedent for this with Valkyrie variants in 'Redemption Corps' by Rob Sanders, but given the mixed reactions to anything non-Codex such can provoke you may want to keep in mind some people may deem that 'non canon'. I don't, but I'm pretty liberal in my view of 40K.)

Anyhow, tonnage wise you can carry at least one if not two Centaurs per Sky Talon (or the REdemption Corps variant, they could definitely carry two.) and it should work out tonnage and volume wise (volume might be scraping it for two.)

The alternate option, although this is entirely speculative on my part, is to give your troops an uparmored Trojan as a light tank/APC or whatever. For whatever reason the dang thing is rated at ONLY 3.5 tonnes (despite the fact it has 80-90mm of armor - by contrast most any post-WW2 airborne armored vehicle (includng light tanks) have half or a third of that armor AT BEST. Even if we assume it's only mild steel rather than RHA or better (matter of opinion) it would still be at least equal and that's at a fraction of the weight of most tanks. (Maybe IA messed up the numbers again.)

Anyhoo, you could use the Trojan platform to work up any number of 'airborne' armored vehicle analogs patterned after RL examples (think of a Elysian version of the Ontos for example. Even if the weight is more its probably less than 2 Sentinels, the Trojan probably isn't going to be vastly heavier than that unless it actually weighs as much as some of the Sentinel variants (heck Salamanders are already 5 tonnes lighter and are much more heavily armored.) The problem, however, is the Trojan (liek the Chimera) seems to be much wider than even the oversized Tauros (and wider than a Centaur). Magnetic thingies that carry stuff are wide enough to carry a Tauros in the model, but ont he other hand they also look like they're meant to be movable, and at a guess they MIGHT just widen enough to maybe carry a light Trojan chassis (otherwise you'd have to handwave some Valkyrie modification or variant to allow for carrying such wider vehicles.) Obviously it would only carry one such as well.

Another consideration might be Rapiers as well (albeit being slow, they probably can carry heavier guns.) And the Elysians probably can do with all the guns they can. Some sort of indirect fire platform (mortars or thudd guns) and laser destroyers would be quite useful in direct and indirect fire.

Looking at it, a Sky Talon might be able to carry a Centaur, but the Centaur won't be able to keep up with Tauros scout cars on those tracks.

The Tauros transport idea did appear in Hammer and Anvil, although in hindsight its possible that Swallow had heard about the development of the Taurox around the studio and got mixed up.

Elysians deploy Tarantulas as their heavier support weapons if they can afford to remain stationary, and Tauros Venators if they need more range than a Drop Sentinel's multi-melta. Against hardened targets they're rather fond of simply tossing Cyclops remote demolition vehicles out of the backs of Valkyries.

The problem with Redemption Corps is that the variant Valkyries aren't really all that much like Valkyries - Its basically like saying that the Bell Boeing QTR is a variant of the V-22 Osprey (if you don't know the Osprey or the QTR, they're the tiltrotor transport planes that SHIELD used at the end of the first Avengers movie).

The doubled-up Valkyries from Redemption Corps could carry Salamanders in their cargo bays. Plural.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Anyhow, tonnage wise you can carry at least one if not two Centaurs per Sky Talon (or the REdemption Corps variant, they could definitely carry two.) and it should work out tonnage and volume wise (volume might be scraping it for two.)

I think it might fit. Centaurs are tiny, and looking at the model compared to a normal Valkryie (I don't have a Sky Talon) you could probably get two of them in the Sky Talon's cargo area if you're willing to let them hang over the edge a bit.

The downside, of course, is that the Centaur is tiny. It barely holds a 5-man squad and driver, with very little room left over for their gear. And you're not going to be able to mount much of a weapon on it, even if you're willing to give up the transport capacity entirely and make it redundant compared to a Tauros. TBH it would probably be better to just improvise some seats on the side of a Tauros squadron for transport out of combat, instead of wasting valuable Valkyrie cargo on a Centaur that can't do much in combat anyway.

For whatever reason the dang thing is rated at ONLY 3.5 tonnes (despite the fact it has 80-90mm of armor - by contrast most any post-WW2 airborne armored vehicle (includng light tanks) have half or a third of that armor AT BEST.

I think we have to call that a typo. Even the much smaller and open-topped Centaur is 6.2 tons, so a 3.5 ton Trojan would have to be made out of foam and tissue paper. The only thing that makes sense is that the decimal point is a typo and the Trojan was meant to be 35 tons, slightly less than the 38 ton Chimera but not completely out of proportion with everything else.

Another consideration might be Rapiers as well (albeit being slow, they probably can carry heavier guns.) And the Elysians probably can do with all the guns they can. Some sort of indirect fire platform (mortars or thudd guns) and laser destroyers would be quite useful in direct and indirect fire.

Of course the real question here is why they don't get lascanon drop Sentinels, which would IMO be a lot more useful than the barely-mobile Rapier. Or a mortar on the back of the Tauros instead of the grenade launcher, etc.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Looking at it, a Sky Talon might be able to carry a Centaur, but the Centaur won't be able to keep up with Tauros scout cars on those tracks.

AFAIK apart from FFG we don't know how fast the Tauros actually is, and we certainly don't know its off-road speed. The thing about wheeled vehicles is that they're better than tracked on roads, but tracked vehicles are better off-road. Given the Elysians aren't likely to be operating 'on road' very often, I doubt the difference in speed would be all that significant (Hell even on road Centaurs are pretty dang speedy, 110 kph, and I dont think they even have modded engines.)

The problem with Redemption Corps is that the variant Valkyries aren't really all that much like Valkyries - Its basically like saying that the Bell Boeing QTR is a variant of the V-22 Osprey (if you don't know the Osprey or the QTR, they're the tiltrotor transport planes that SHIELD used at the end of the first Avengers movie).

The doubled-up Valkyries from Redemption Corps could carry Salamanders in their cargo bays. Plural.

I never got the impression they were nearly that big. They had a larger carrying capacity than the Sky Talon arguably (or at least, it was more contained) but that was it.)

In any case Valkyries aren't much like Valkyries anymore (or what they were) given they're now basically not just dogfighting aeronautica, but also void capable attack craft as well (Pandorax and then the MT codex) They're mini-thunderhawks.

 Peregrine wrote:

The downside, of course, is that the Centaur is tiny. It barely holds a 5-man squad and driver, with very little room left over for their gear. And you're not going to be able to mount much of a weapon on it, even if you're willing to give up the transport capacity entirely and make it redundant compared to a Tauros. TBH it would probably be better to just improvise some seats on the side of a Tauros squadron for transport out of combat, instead of wasting valuable Valkyrie cargo on a Centaur that can't do much in combat anyway.

I thought it could fit five men, the driver, and a gunner? The stats list a 'crew' as driver + Gunner, plus 5 soldiers. It probably could fit a bit more in (albeit squeezing in). Armament wise, you could fit in any heavy weapon (meaning its no better or worse than a Salamander, and with a lascannon it would make a good anti-tank platform.) but most light tanks couldn't mount much in the way of heavy guns either (recoil and ammo carrying are big drawbacks with a lighter frame.)

I don't think its going to be any worse than a Tauros or Tauros Venator though, I don't think you could carry more than 5-6 guys in the back of the Tauros if you could convert it (About what most MRAPS can carry too, I think) You'd have to stick an extended cab on it (or make it an 8x8 vehicle)

I think we have to call that a typo. Even the much smaller and open-topped Centaur is 6.2 tons, so a 3.5 ton Trojan would have to be made out of foam and tissue paper. The only thing that makes sense is that the decimal point is a typo and the Trojan was meant to be 35 tons, slightly less than the 38 ton Chimera but not completely out of proportion with everything else.

I'd thought of that. Except that the Hellhound is 35 tonnes, yet it carries more weapons and considerably more armor for that same tonnage (and the Trojan is explicitly stated to be stripped down for non-combat roles.) Salamanders are the same, and several tons lighter.

Moreover that 'typo' was repeated in IA1 2nd edition.. you'd think if it was a typo they'd fix it (unless they're just very stubborn or mindless in their repetition.. always possible. IA1 2nd actually had more errors than the first IIRC.)

Best workaround I thought of was to compare it to the Atlas, which is the LR equivalent of the Trojan basically (stripped down noncombat hull.) Given that, it would suggest the Trojan is perhals 20-25 tonnes. Heavier than I assumed, but not improbable either.

Of course the real question here is why they don't get lascanon drop Sentinels, which would IMO be a lot more useful than the barely-mobile Rapier. Or a mortar on the back of the Tauros instead of the grenade launcher, etc.

I always wondered why no Sentinel except the CAtachan pattern ever carried more than one weapon. They clearly have multiple mounting points (The support sentinels can carry weapons mounted at the back, and they can mount forward mounts on both sides.. Heck so can Sentinel powerloaders. That would be like the closest the IG gets to powered armor (more like HEAVY GEAR or VOTOMS though)

Peregrine wrote:
Of course the real question here is why they don't get lascanon drop Sentinels, which would IMO be a lot more useful than the barely-mobile Rapier. Or a mortar on the back of the Tauros instead of the grenade launcher, etc.

Because when the Drop Sentinel was invented, it was designed to be thrown out the back of a regular Valkyrie - FW hadn't invented the Sky Talon yet. A folded-up Drop Sentinel fits in the cargo bay of a Valkyrie, but if it had a long-barrelled gun on it, the rear hatch wouldn't be able to close.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
AFAIK apart from FFG we don't know how fast the Tauros actually is, and we certainly don't know its off-road speed. The thing about wheeled vehicles is that they're better than tracked on roads, but tracked vehicles are better off-road. Given the Elysians aren't likely to be operating 'on road' very often, I doubt the difference in speed would be all that significant (Hell even on road Centaurs are pretty dang speedy, 110 kph, and I dont think they even have modded engines.)

Hm. Frustratingly, it appears you are correct. I retract the absolute nature of my statement, although I will note that the Tauros has inherent resilience to dangerous terrain while the Centaur would need a dozer blade.

I never got the impression they were nearly that big. They had a larger carrying capacity than the Sky Talon arguably (or at least, it was more contained) but that was it.)

They were described as having four wings with engines mounted on them, and at one point two Salamanders deployed from one. Not sure how much more explicitly "fricken huge" you can get.

In any case Valkyries aren't much like Valkyries anymore (or what they were) given they're now basically not just dogfighting aeronautica, but also void capable attack craft as well (Pandorax and then the MT codex) They're mini-thunderhawks.

I can't find the reference (or couldn't last time it came up), but I remember Valkyries being void-sealed from long before those books came out. Of course, in my memory, they were bricks that were basically only suitable for leaving the ship and going straight to re-entry because their maneuverability was more a side-effect of being vectored thrust VTOLs than anything intentional.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The downside, of course, is that the Centaur is tiny. It barely holds a 5-man squad and driver, with very little room left over for their gear. And you're not going to be able to mount much of a weapon on it, even if you're willing to give up the transport capacity entirely and make it redundant compared to a Tauros. TBH it would probably be better to just improvise some seats on the side of a Tauros squadron for transport out of combat, instead of wasting valuable Valkyrie cargo on a Centaur that can't do much in combat anyway.

I thought it could fit five men, the driver, and a gunner? The stats list a 'crew' as driver + Gunner, plus 5 soldiers. It probably could fit a bit more in (albeit squeezing in). Armament wise, you could fit in any heavy weapon (meaning its no better or worse than a Salamander, and with a lascannon it would make a good anti-tank platform.) but most light tanks couldn't mount much in the way of heavy guns either (recoil and ammo carrying are big drawbacks with a lighter frame.)

It's a 40k Bren Carrier, which historically the transport version of could carry a squad of five, one of them firing a pintle machinegun, and mounted a machinegun on the front as well;

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I don't think its going to be any worse than a Tauros or Tauros Venator though, I don't think you could carry more than 5-6 guys in the back of the Tauros if you could convert it (About what most MRAPS can carry too, I think) You'd have to stick an extended cab on it (or make it an 8x8 vehicle)

I think Peregrine's suggestion was actually to put fold-down benches on the outside of the Tauros V and grab handles.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I always wondered why no Sentinel except the CAtachan pattern ever carried more than one weapon. They clearly have multiple mounting points (The support sentinels can carry weapons mounted at the back, and they can mount forward mounts on both sides.. Heck so can Sentinel powerloaders. That would be like the closest the IG gets to powered armor (more like HEAVY GEAR or VOTOMS though)

I never got it either. For Drop Sentinels it makes sense (see my first reply in this post) but for standard Sentinels, why do they not make full use of their hard points? Is it a power supply issue? A weight concern? Is the standard Sentinel's balance not good enough?

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I thought it could fit five men, the driver, and a gunner? The stats list a 'crew' as driver + Gunner, plus 5 soldiers. It probably could fit a bit more in (albeit squeezing in).

You're right, I was thinking of the grenadier model which comes with a 5-man squad (one squad member acting as the gunner) and driver. You could cram a sixth person into it, at the expense of giving the gunner very little room to stand and do his job. And you certainly aren't going to get more than that, unless you have them sitting on each other's laps.

Armament wise, you could fit in any heavy weapon (meaning its no better or worse than a Salamander, and with a lascannon it would make a good anti-tank platform.)

Not a chance. The Salamander's autocannon is as long as the whole Centaur (once again highlighting the absurdity of "autocannons" all having the same stats), and even infantry-scale weapons would be a pretty tight fit and require removing most/all of the transport space. You're certainly not going to get anything like the Tauros' twin lascannon turret, so what's the point of the conversion?

I don't think its going to be any worse than a Tauros or Tauros Venator though, I don't think you could carry more than 5-6 guys in the back of the Tauros if you could convert it (About what most MRAPS can carry too, I think) You'd have to stick an extended cab on it (or make it an 8x8 vehicle)

I didn't mean converting a Tauros to have seats inside, I mean welding some seats onto the outside so it can carry a few passengers while it's driving around out of combat. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate at all for combat use, but a Centaur isn't really appropriate either.

I'd thought of that. Except that the Hellhound is 35 tonnes, yet it carries more weapons and considerably more armor for that same tonnage (and the Trojan is explicitly stated to be stripped down for non-combat roles.) Salamanders are the same, and several tons lighter.

The numbers really don't make any sense. How is the Hellhound lighter than a Chimera, despite carrying much heavier armor? I think those stat pages need to be taken with a lot of skepticism.

Moreover that 'typo' was repeated in IA1 2nd edition.. you'd think if it was a typo they'd fix it (unless they're just very stubborn or mindless in their repetition.. always possible. IA1 2nd actually had more errors than the first IIRC.)

I think those stat pages just aren't a very high priority for them, and nobody noticed the typo. Most people probably don't read them very carefully (if they read them at all), and they have no rules information that might impact the game. So just copy/paste the whole thing from the previous edition and save time.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Elysians are not supposed to fight the enemy from the front or hold out in a drawn-out battle. Their purpose is hit and run tactics behind enemy lines. In such a fight, armoured vehicles are more a liability than an asset because they will be very noisy and unwieldy, as well as impossible to recover.

Routinely dying to a man whenever they're mentioned also seems to be their purpose, so I'd say inability to recover the armor would be a non-issue.

Here's a picture to demonstrate the size issues with the Centaur. From left to right: the autocannon the Salamander scout is armed with, a Centaur, a 28mm model for scale, and a Salamander.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not a chance. The Salamander's autocannon is as long as the whole Centaur (once again highlighting the absurdity of "autocannons" all having the same stats), and even infantry-scale weapons would be a pretty tight fit and require removing most/all of the transport space. You're certainly not going to get anything like the Tauros' twin lascannon turret, so what's the point of the conversion?

Sorry I meant a Tauros, not a Salamander. And the twin lascannon is only because a.) it has a turret and b.) the Tauros despite its overlarge size (especially in the 6x6 form) can't carry any troops. Let's not forget that the infantryman manning those guns is in a far more exposed position as well to achieve that. I mean Sentinels as a anti-lascannon platform would make more sense. The Centaur would also suffer from fire arcs, but it would arguably be better protecte dand more versatile. And better protected (again apart from the top.)

For that matter you have to wonder who thought it was a brilliant idea to mount a direct-fire anti tank weapon on such a unarmored chassis. There's a reason why tank destroyers and IFVS do not carry APFSDS unless it's in a missile form. Actually that's even more hilarious givne the Elysians are the ones who pack the Support Sentinels and you'd think mounting twin missile or rocket launchers would be more sensible (indirect fire capability meaning you don't have to get into line of sight on the bad guy, especially.) Or maybe one of those autoloading hunter-killer missile launchers like Chimera variants could equip, Anything other than a weapon that would put a lightly armed vehicle in the direct line of fire with the enemy.

Of course I imagine any Centaur variant the Elysians would use would be modified anyhow.

I didn't mean converting a Tauros to have seats inside, I mean welding some seats onto the outside so it can carry a few passengers while it's driving around out of combat. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate at all for combat use, but a Centaur isn't really appropriate either.

That might work, but you're basically going 'tank desant' on the 40K version of a warthog and apart from issues of whether such people would be safe (not just from potential enemy danger, but also anything the wheels and such might kick up in hostile terrain) it would be counter-productive to an armed vehicle anyhow. If you're going to make a carrier variant strip out the weapon and put the seats on the inside and outside. Keep it out of combat and let it carry lots of troops (or equipment.)

The numbers really don't make any sense. How is the Hellhound lighter than a Chimera, despite carrying much heavier armor? I think those stat pages need to be taken with a lot of skepticism.

[quoteI think those stat pages just aren't a very high priority for them, and nobody noticed the typo. Most people probably don't read them very carefully (if they read them at all), and they have no rules information that might impact the game. So just copy/paste the whole thing from the previous edition and save time.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Sorry I meant a Tauros, not a Salamander.

I don't think that's much better. The Centaur is just so tiny that even infantry-scale lascannons/autocannons/etc would barely fit. It would almost certainly have to be a fixed forward-arc mount, and the gunner and ammunition would fill the entire transport capacity. So you've just created a Tauros/Sentinel equivalent that has no real reason to exist.

For that matter you have to wonder who thought it was a brilliant idea to mount a direct-fire anti tank weapon on such a unarmored chassis. There's a reason why tank destroyers and IFVS do not carry APFSDS unless it's in a missile form.

But that's in the real world, where we don't have instant-hit laser weapons with perfect accuracy and no recoil. The Tauros can probably fire with good accuracy while driving at full speed (since the gunner can use the turret to aim independently of what the driver is doing) and avoid getting hit at all, something real-world vehicles have a lot more trouble with. The Centaur, on the other hand, isn't going to be as mobile and is a therefore lot more likely to take a hit. And its tissue paper armor isn't going to provide any useful protection against a serious anti-tank gun.

If you're going to make a carrier variant strip out the weapon and put the seats on the inside and outside. Keep it out of combat and let it carry lots of troops (or equipment.)

I don't mean making a dedicated carrier variant, I'm talking about giving a bit of mobility when necessary with the vehicles a drop troops unit is already bringing to a fight. It wouldn't be a standard part of a plan very often, but it would be better than dropping otherwise-useless Centaurs just in case plans change and the unit has to move faster than troops on foot can manage. A transport Tauros doesn't really help much since it's still an additional vehicle that spends valuable Valkyrie capacity on "just in case" abilities.

Sure, but they're taken as gospel by a great many, especially givne their inclusion on a wiki page. Which is sort of a problem.

I agree that it's a problem, and I have no idea why anyone would assume that they're indisputable canon. They're useful information when they make sense, but they very clearly have some typos and nonsense statistics.

Don't possibly see how, given that Valkyries model-wise only have airbreathing engines and there's nothing in space for them to breathe on (too small to be Bussard Ramjets, even if they could generate magnetic fields big enoguh to work to begin with.) You'd have to attach a rocket booster like Aeronautica and there's no indication they had that I am aware of, either.

It could be one of those "different pattern" things, where most Valkyries are air-only but a rare variant pattern has limited rocket engines and a sealed transport section. Giving a Valkyrie the ability to deploy from orbit wouldn't be too difficult since you're not trying to give it the ability to fight or maneuver effectively in space. It could even be a single-use rocket pack that is jettisoned once the Valkyrie gets low enough to use its own engines, so that the extra weight doesn't cause any problems.

Besides, there's absolutely no reason the Valk can't be fitted with baffles over the intakes and have an internal supply of reaction mass that's diverted into the jet like a certain other Valkyrie.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think that's much better. The Centaur is just so tiny that even infantry-scale lascannons/autocannons/etc would barely fit. It would almost certainly have to be a fixed forward-arc mount, and the gunner and ammunition would fill the entire transport capacity. So you've just created a Tauros/Sentinel equivalent that has no real reason to exist.

I wasn't actually thinking they had to carry extra ammo (at least no more than what the squad itself would be carrying as a heavy weapons unit attached.) Even failing that, you still have more versatility in its use than with either a sentinel or Tauros (it can be used as a heavy weapons carrier, or a troop carrier, or a mix of both.) If you wanted a heavy mobile weapons platform, you still have sentinels (which are much smaller than Tauros anyhow for the given purpose, and have a much more diverse weapons selection. And you're not really going to be losing out on protection or height with either.)

But that's in the real world, where we don't have instant-hit laser weapons with perfect accuracy and no recoil. The Tauros can probably fire with good accuracy while driving at full speed (since the gunner can use the turret to aim independently of what the driver is doing) and avoid getting hit at all, something real-world vehicles have a lot more trouble with. The Centaur, on the other hand, isn't going to be as mobile and is a therefore lot more likely to take a hit. And its tissue paper armor isn't going to provide any useful protection against a serious anti-tank gun.

The Tauros is fast, but its not fast enough to outrun weapons fire. Mobility is all well and good but its not really a replacement for armor, active/passive defenses, etc. That's why despite the fact the US military keeps playing around with the Future Combat Systems concept and replacing the Abrams with a 20 ton vehicle, we've never actually done away with conventional military and gone full airborne (or in more accurate terms, fighting closer to like how the TAu fight, since they favor that same 'heavy direct gun on mobile platform' approach as well.) You might fix this by going hull down, but that does away witht he mobility issue and pretty much any platform you have can do that (including Sentinels or the Centaur.) the only difference being two lascannon on a single platform (and I bet you could do that on a Sentinel as well.)

Also, the Tauros gun is only useful so long as noone actually kills the dude in the open topped turret (frag from artillery or missile strikes, sniper/marksman, stray bullet, etc.) As to whether it could fire on the move... probably but accuracy isn't going to be just cuz its a laser but also what sort of suspension it has, whether it has gyro-stabilization or something similar (which is something tanks already have), etc. A laser mounted on lousy suspension or not gyrostabilized could still probably miss no matter how quickly the beam strikes. Beyond that range is also going tob e dictated by ability to penetrate armor (its not going to be the same at all ranges, unless you're using a very inefficient heat ray setup, and that has all sorts of other realism problems for any actual 'laser anyhow.) Does no good as an anti-tank weapon if you have to close the range with the target to actually punch through its armor. And yes, this applies to Sentinels and the Centaur as well, but they also have more options and versatility than the Tauros does.

Whereas if you equip missile launchers on it (and reloads, I'm betting you can store those on there) it gains more utility without neccesarily exposing itself. Heck, its more like a lightweight Whirlwind and can still have anti-tank capability (as well as anti-air, and anti-personnel)

I don't mean making a dedicated carrier variant, I'm talking about giving a bit of mobility when necessary with the vehicles a drop troops unit is already bringing to a fight. It wouldn't be a standard part of a plan very often, but it would be better than dropping otherwise-useless Centaurs just in case plans change and the unit has to move faster than troops on foot can manage. A transport Tauros doesn't really help much since it's still an additional vehicle that spends valuable Valkyrie capacity on "just in case" abilities.

Except your troops are still on the OUTSIDE. Whereas with a Tauros they'd have at least SOME cover rather than none (more if they can be enclosed like implied in Redemption Corps. Rules don't allow for that, but the rules tend to leave out alot of things like that.) If we're going to talk about 'wasted' capability then any transport at all is 'wasted' because they already have the Valks to transport them, and that extra carrying space could be better spent by artilley platforms and more sentinels than with any sort of lightweight, poorly armored vehicle.

Frankly I'm a bit surprised forgeworld hasn't tried fabricating some sort of light APC/light tank analogue for the Elysians since its not exactly something impossible IRL to begin with. More money for the money god, and all that.

I agree that it's a problem, and I have no idea why anyone would assume that they're indisputable canon. They're useful information when they make sense, but they very clearly have some typos and nonsense statistics.

Published numbers and 'facts' tend to be taken more than observations (unless the 'facts' contradict what someone knows to be true.) Like in stuff like Mass Effect lots of people I know trust the codex more as the 'true' interpretation of the universe even thought hat there can be inconsistencies between that and the game (or with itself, for that matter.)

be one of those "different pattern" things, where most Valkyries are air-only but a rare variant pattern has limited rocket engines and a sealed transport section. Giving a Valkyrie the ability to deploy from orbit wouldn't be too difficult since you're not trying to give it the ability to fight or maneuver effectively in space. It could even be a single-use rocket pack that is jettisoned once the Valkyrie gets low enough to use its own engines, so that the extra weight doesn't cause any problems.

That's pretty much what it has to be, another 'variant' although that is arguably also true of the 'dogfighting' Valkyrie type, since the IA iteration could never have effectively fought true aircraft by the stats alone (although hilariously, they had HEAVIER armor than aeronautica. Even bombers. Despite being lighter and having to carry troops.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Even failing that, you still have more versatility in its use than with either a sentinel or Tauros (it can be used as a heavy weapons carrier, or a troop carrier, or a mix of both.)

Strategic flexibility in which way to equip the Centaur, maybe. But not tactical flexibility once you drop it. I just can't imagine having any kind of useful weapon mount on such a tiny vehicle without making permanent changes, especially if you want more protection than the Tauros offers. So if you're going to commit to welding the gun mounts onto your Centaurs and filling the transport capacity with armor plates and extra ammo why not just drop some Sentinels instead?

The Tauros is fast, but its not fast enough to outrun weapons fire.

I don't mean out-running fire by dodging bullets, I mean moving quickly between cover and not giving a larger vehicle time to move its turret into position. Obviously this doesn't work very well in an open field battle (but drop troops get slaughtered there anyway), but let's say the target is a LRBT in a city. The Tauros can move out from behind a building along a perpendicular street, enter an intersection with its gun already aimed at the LRBT, and immediately start shooting. Unless the LRBT already has its gun pointed at the Tauros it might not survive long enough to fire back. And if the Tauros can't score an immediate kill it can, without delaying at all, move away at full speed and hide behind the next building. The Centaur, on the other hand would have to stop in the intersection, turn to aim its hull-mounted gun (since there's no way it's going to have a decent turret), and give the LRBT a lot more time to return fire before the Centaur can take its shot. And if the Centaur wants to disengage it will have to turn again to a safe direction before it can start moving.

Now, this would be a much harder question if the Centaur actually had the ability to survive return fire from the LRBT, but against any serious weapons it has no better protection than the Tauros. The only way either vehicle is going to survive is to never have a gun pointed at it, and the Tauros is much better at that.

That's why despite the fact the US military keeps playing around with the Future Combat Systems concept and replacing the Abrams with a 20 ton vehicle, we've never actually done away with conventional military and gone full airborne

But that's not really a good example, for two reasons:

1) In the real world we don't have lascannons. Real-world light vehicles suffer from huge recoil problems or extremely limited (and expensive) ammunition for their missile launchers. You can't replace the Abrams with a vehicle that can't carry a big enough gun to kill the tanks the Abrams is expected to fight. But that's not a problem for the Tauros, which carries the same twin-linked lascannon as a LR Annihilator without any recoil issues to worry about.

2) In the real world we care about casualties. Good luck getting any political support for a new tank design that is expected to take 95% losses in every battle. Even if you can afford it from a purely military perspective you can't afford to have the nightly news showing pictures of destroyed tank squadrons and lists of casualties while the other party promises to provide better tanks if they win the next election. But that's not a problem in 40k. Troops are expendable as long as you win the war, and anyone who complains about how bad it is to sacrifice loyal soldiers for minimal gains is lucky if they're sent to the penal legions instead of being executed immediately.

Plus, drop troops aren't the entire IG. The question is not "should we replace the entire IG with more Elysians", it's "if we're going to have drop troops how should they be armed".

Whereas if you equip missile launchers on it (and reloads, I'm betting you can store those on there)

The Tauros actually has a pair of hunter-killer missile launchers (and can presumably carry a few reloads, even if they're one-shot weapons in the tabletop game).

If we're going to talk about 'wasted' capability then any transport at all is 'wasted' because they already have the Valks to transport them, and that extra carrying space could be better spent by artilley platforms and more sentinels than with any sort of lightweight, poorly armored vehicle.

Well yeah, that's the whole point. Valkyries are supposed to be the primary transport and bring a drop troops unit directly to its target, so it's not worth using those Valkyries to haul additional transports. I'm certainly not suggesting taking a bunch of Tauros squadrons with the intent of carrying troops on them, I'm saying that since the Tauros squardons are already there as fast scouts and mobile gun platforms you might as well weld a few seats to them just in case something goes wrong and you need emergency ground transportation. At least then you're using the vehicles you're already carrying, even if they aren't an ideal solution.

Frankly I'm a bit surprised forgeworld hasn't tried fabricating some sort of light APC/light tank analogue for the Elysians since its not exactly something impossible IRL to begin with. More money for the money god, and all that.

Sadly it's not a space marine shoulder pad, so it probably wouldn't sell enough. We can only wonder what promising ideas 30k killed.

So I'm working on this right now.

Not sure if it would fit in with what you are looking for right now, but if a sky crane can carry a 33,000 pound Chinook, a sky talon should be able to carry one of these troop transports.

Instructions to build are here

My guys are pure light infantry and air cav. You are still going to need to transport troops and other supplies when you are behind enemy lines. These also allow for ambush placements and generally expand your are of combat operations all the while lessening the complete dependency you have on air superiority.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Not sure if it would fit in with what you are looking for right now, but if a sky crane can carry a 33,000 pound Chinook, a sky talon should be able to carry one of these troop transports.

Not necessarily. Cargo capacity is about more than just the weight of the thing you're carrying, especially in combat. Size and balance are extremely important, and aren't nearly as straightforward as a single weight number. Similarly, maximum cargo capacity under safe conditions where a sling load can be moved slowly and carefully with plenty of safety margin is significantly more than maximum cargo capacity assuming a maximum-rate descent into the target area while making evasive maneuvers. Carrying 30,000 pounds of vehicles in a sling isn't very useful if you smash those vehicles into the ground and destroy them.

You are still going to need to transport troops and other supplies when you are behind enemy lines.

That depends on how long you're going to be behind enemy lines and what your objectives are. For example, in IA3 the Elysians were dropped into a water treatment and storage facility to take it from the Tau and hold it for a couple of days while reinforcements broke through the Tau lines. And in the opening moments of the war the space marines made a similar attack on a missile silo that could have engaged the Imperial ships in orbit. In both of those cases the troops on the ground didn't move very far once they were deployed, and transport vehicles would have been a waste.

These also allow for ambush placements and generally expand your are of combat operations all the while lessening the complete dependency you have on air superiority.

I think you're confusing two things here: light infantry deployed directly to a target like the Elysians, and conventional forces that are deployed and supplied by air away from combat and expected to operate in the area for an extended period of time. Elysians as shown in the fluff don't really care about expanding their area of operations because they're shooting the enemy as they disembark from their Valkyries and expect to resolve the fight (win or lose) and be picked up by their Valkyries within a very short amount of time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Not sure if it would fit in with what you are looking for right now, but if a sky crane can carry a 33,000 pound Chinook, a sky talon should be able to carry one of these troop transports.

You are still going to need to transport troops and other supplies when you are behind enemy lines.

That depends on how long you're going to be behind enemy lines and what your objectives are. For example, in IA3 the Elysians were dropped into a water treatment and storage facility to take it from the Tau and hold it for a couple of days while reinforcements broke through the Tau lines. And in the opening moments of the war the space marines made a similar attack on a missile silo that could have engaged the Imperial ships in orbit. In both of those cases the troops on the ground didn't move very far once they were deployed, and transport vehicles would have been a waste.

These also allow for ambush placements and generally expand your are of combat operations all the while lessening the complete dependency you have on air superiority.

I think you're confusing two things here: light infantry deployed directly to a target like the Elysians, and conventional forces that are deployed and supplied by air away from combat and expected to operate in the area for an extended period of time. Elysians as shown in the fluff don't really care about expanding their area of operations because they're shooting the enemy as they disembark from their Valkyries and expect to resolve the fight (win or lose) and be picked up by their Valkyries within a very short amount of time.

My guys operate behind enemy lines and are inserted and supplied via covert low altitude air drops. They don't really use any of the ground vehicles for the IG except for sentinels my future conversion, and the taros. My regiment harries enemy supply lines and coordinates strikes on critical logistical locations. When it is opportune they consolidate their forces, work in tandem with their air to ground support, and coordinate a two front offensive on enemy positions. During these offensives both light infantry and drop troop tactics are utilized. Once the conventional forces and my own meet, the regiment is redeployed elsewhere.


This isn't meant for combat drops like the drop sentinels. Instead it is meant to be dropped carefully behind enemy lines where it can hold supplies and troops for the regiment.
I said it might not be what the op was looking for, but hey if he likes it it's all good.