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.

Just finished watching The Awakening and that got me thinking, what is the stat line for a nuclear weapon (as an atomic demolition, not an ICBM or what not, as there are weapons that are better suited for destruction on a larger scale than nukes)? An atomic demolition is pretty small, and pretty powerful as you can pack a few megatons into a small package (heavy, but small) able to be teleported in, or transported via some means into a target (to get past shields or whatnot).

So, anyone know what that would be?

-STS

I remember the old Starship Troopers game simply had remove all models under the template.

The old wargamimg joke is to douse the table in lighter fluid and light a match

According to this paper:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R425.pdf


The heat energy within a certain radius can reach very high levels, but returns to normal temperatures within only 20 seconds or so. If you are within a certain radius when it goes off you will be incinerated.

However, some 40k armour suits (power armour, aspect armour, necrons etc) have high temperature resistance and may be able to withstand the heat within a certain radius. a 1 mt bomb generates enough heat to burn through high temp ceramics up to ~1km from the blast zone, but beyond that those warriors may survive the temperature. They may not survive the shockwave that will smash them with huge force though.

At the scale of a 40k battlfield and a 1mt bomb is dropped right in the middle, everything is definitely within that temp radius so few things will survive (Omega's burn the table down analogy suits this pretty well).

I remember the evil that was nukes in BattleTech. I'll go see if the rules are in my BattleMech Manual tomorrow.

At minimum, imagine targeting every individual model on the table with a Belicosa volcano cannon, and the cannon has [TORRENT], [DEVASTATNG WOUNDS] and [ANTI-EVERYTHING 2+].

One issue is the over the top nature of 40k and how it connects to reality. You have things like plasma guns and fusion rifles, and more deadly stuff then that being tossed around. And things tank those kind of hits. On that scale, how bad is a nuke?

(Still real bad)

A shielded or powerfielded Titan could, theoretically, survive a Nuke. Especially if it’s Void Shields, as those shunt the energy of an attacking (kinetic or not) into the warp itself, with the generator cutting out as a safety measure.

So the heat issue? Void Shields have a decent chance of tanking it, especially if you’ve multiple activated (the more the merrier).

The blast wave issue? Depending on exactly how they work, that may be a non-issue too, as the Void Shields absorbs and shunts that kinetic blow, preventing the Titan feeling so much as a stiff breeze from it. But I’m really, really not sure that is how they work. Though given active VSGs can also block certain “that was a hefty blow!” weapon traits, I think it is implied.

As many have stated, the POWER of the nukes is high, but there are things that are stronger than they are (exterminatus, maybe orbital fire support) so that isn't really isn't a problem to put stuff in tabletop form.
Nukes have a smaller size than some of the really big stuff, so using nukes as anti-titan mines or as demolitions (open a hole in a hive city as exactly X spot and Y time) there is still a use.

Anyway, thanks for the inputs.

-STS

Nuclear Weapons can be part of an Exterminatus. And given when used in such a context, the yield could be far, far higher.

After all, nobody on a given planet sees particular sense in a Nuclear Arsenal where maybe half dozen warheads could ignite the atmosphere. But when you’re following Ripley’s advice to the extreme? Crank that yield up, baby! Maybe make a game of it! See how few warheads it takes to ignite the sodding atmosphere.

Also keep in mind Exterminatus is a sentence, and not a specific technique.

Sure. When you really want to get the job done there are specific tools for the job. But even a single Cobra Class Destroyer, given time, can do the damage needed from orbit just with its weapons batteries and torpedoes.

Though my personal favourite is where you send down some Virus Bombs, the sort which turn all living matter to mulch, releasing a whole load of methane, and then send down a single, regular payload torpedo to set all that farty pootpoot stinky stuff ablaze.

Because at that point, even those who hid away in underground bunkers are pretty much stuffed, as the planet loses its atmosphere.

Given the temperature of even a small 1mt nuke within the 1km radius of the detonation, i expect the rules to look something like this:


Nuclear Detonation
Determine the distance from the explosion this battlefield is by rolling 1d6 on the following table:

1: Distant and protected, no effect.

2-3: Close: Every unit suffers 2D6 wounds, roll saves as normal.

4-5: Lethal radius: Make an armour save for every model on the board, if they fail they are removed. Monsters and Vehicles that fail their save lose 2D6 wounds instead.

6: Epicentre: Remove all terrain and models from the table. Terrain with the keyword bunker remain on a 4+, any models in that terrain remain if it does. Roll 1D6 for each model with an invulnerable save. Models survive on a 6, vehicles and monsters on a 4+.

Depends on the size of the nuke. The SADM or backpack nuke was a one kiloton nuke carried by paratroopers in what was described as a trashcan.

It was a tactical nuclear weapon made to destroy bridges and infrastructure... and due to the deployment team's on station orders, it was also a one way trip for them.

If you are ever really bored, I can recommend a good book about a guy who trained with these things.

At that scale it's not really going to be any different to conventional explosives, so statwise would follow something like a demolisher cannon or similar.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A shielded or powerfielded Titan could, theoretically, survive a Nuke. Especially if it’s Void Shields, as those shunt the energy of an attacking (kinetic or not) into the warp itself, with the generator cutting out as a safety measure.

So the heat issue? Void Shields have a decent chance of tanking it, especially if you’ve multiple activated (the more the merrier).

The blast wave issue? Depending on exactly how they work, that may be a non-issue too, as the Void Shields absorbs and shunts that kinetic blow, preventing the Titan feeling so much as a stiff breeze from it. But I’m really, really not sure that is how they work. Though given active VSGs can also block certain “that was a hefty blow!” weapon traits, I think it is implied.

I seem to recall in a BL novel - that some Titans got nuked and knocked out by the EMP?

Nuclear weapons already exist on the tabletop. The Deathstrike Missile Launcher can be armed with either Plasma Warheads or Nuclear Warheads. Although there isn't a functional difference between the two crunch-wise.

A better way to implement nukes in my opinion would be to make it a 3CP Astra Militarum Stratagem where you lay a marker down and it has a 1 round delay. After that delay is up, all units within 9" of that marker take 4 Mortal Wounds and the 3" zone around that marker is considered Dangerous Terrain for the rest of the battle.

Calbear wrote:
Nuclear weapons already exist on the tabletop. The Deathstrike Missile Launcher can be armed with either Plasma Warheads or Nuclear Warheads. Although there isn't a functional difference between the two crunch-wise.

A better way to implement nukes in my opinion would be to make it a 3CP Astra Militarum Stratagem where you lay a marker down and it has a 1 round delay. After that delay is up, all units within 9" of that marker take 4 Mortal Wounds and the 3" zone around that marker is considered Dangerous Terrain for the rest of the battle.

4 Mortal Wounds?
That's not much. At all.

Edit: That is four Guard.
Two MEQ or Plaguebearers.
One and a third TEQ or Gravis.
Not enough to kill any Vehicle or Monster that I know of.
Not enough to kill a Chaos Lord from full either.

The paper I linked above and the numbers provided use a 1 megaton nuke as a benchmark. But those are strategic nukes delivered by ICBM.

If that's not what we're considering, tactical nukes are smaller and range up to 50KT. For reference the Japanese bombings were 12-20 KT each.

If you're interested in seeing how wide an area the effect of a nuke has, visit here:
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


But even a 50KT tac nuke has a 1KM diameter heat zone (fireball) that will incinerate everything and a shockwave diameter of 1.6km.

So unless you're playing with some really wacky distance dilation shenanigans, a normal 40k battlefield is going to be engulfed in a nuclear firestorm and blastwave.

Hell even a 1KT nuke has an incineration diameter of almost 200 metres and at that scale it's not worth making when you have conventional weapons.

Everyone gets hit by a melta charge?