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.

I'm going to agree with Peregrine here. The gunner attached to the weapon through a shoulder harness doesn't make any sense over a jumpseat in an electrically powered turret but it's out of the light AAA pieces seen in every WWII movie.
M.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I think they move away from the enclosed compartment Hydra because of all the alternative small manufacturers that have taken market share from them, by producing more attractive models than FW Hydra. They were all closed compartment. Changing the Hydra design helps them escape these resin competitors who have been quicker at releasing the tank. On top of that, it was in a time when Hydra was amazingly effective for its points, and in high demand. I can show you some of these alternatives, if anybody wants.

Making an open-top resin alternative with detailed sights, control console and two crewmen would be much more difficult. They can be quiet : I guess no alternative manufacturer will dare to follow now. The new Hydra looks excellent on top of that.

I think you're all massively over-thinking it. The Hydra is open-topped because it looks cool, not because of some bizarre attempt to get rid of third-party kits. You can't use third-party kits in a GW store regardless of what the official model looks like, and only the worst TFG is going to nitpick that your third-party Hydra model isn't open-topped. The simple truth is it's a reference to the old WWII AA tanks with their open turrets, with possibly some sprue layout or assembly concerns. Speculating about the "real" reason makes about as much sense as trying to figure out why the latest space marine has his bolter held at that exact angle.

I think there is also a game play/balance aspect to this where it makes it that bit more fragile so it's easier to shift off the board. Makes you think that bit more about where you deploy it.

 Moopy wrote:
It seems that a rule that used to apply only to IC, now applies to general fire when that card is used.

The rule says the effect happens on a 6 when rolling to hit.

Pretty straight forward.

I dunno if it's that straight forward, as a precision shot is described as the thing that lets you pick which model you hit. The wording on pg63 is "If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hot, these are Precision Shots". The sniper rifle is similarly worded. "each To Hit roll of a 6 results in a Precision Shot".

The wording of the rule at the moment is vague because "Precision Shot" is not a "special rule" as it does not come from the "special rules" section of the rulebook... but if I were to interpret it RAW, I'd have to say that all shots made by a unit under that order are Precision Shots (pick their targets) rather than all rolls of 6 are Precision Shots.

The new vehicle. "Wyvern" looks very 'new'. it looks nothing historical and it is quite like mounting Thudd gun on Chimaera chassis and its functions suppressed Griffon. nice!



Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

 Lone Cat wrote:
The new vehicle. "Wyvern" looks very 'new'. it looks nothing historical and it is quite like mounting Thudd gun on Chimaera chassis and its functions suppressed Griffon. nice!

Spoiler:

Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

I like that. Looks quite nice.

I feel like they could have quite easily made a Griffon from the Hydra/Wyvern kit. All you need to do is remove the blast shield, mount the pivoting mechanism rotated 90 degrees, then use one of the Wyvern barrels as the Griffin barrel.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

As far as I know, the closest thing to the Wyvern in reality was rocket artillery, not tube artillery. Even with better auto-loaders, I'd think the recoil would prevent you using the concept to its theoretical potential.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

As far as I know, the closest thing to the Wyvern in reality was rocket artillery, not tube artillery. Even with better auto-loaders, I'd think the recoil would prevent you using the concept to its theoretical potential.

Closest I could get is the Ontos, altough the Ontos was a 6 barreled recoiless direct fire tank.

OK so I've bitten the bolter round and just ordered me a Taurox! And the Scions box too from Element Games, had an unexpected windfall this month so what better way to spend it than on something I'm not sure I actually like and definitely do not need, but hey!

The Taurox has me... intrigued, at first I hated it, now I think it has potential. The front treads are definitely going, I have spare wheels from Chapter House already which are nice and chunky and should suit what I have in mind, a Guard Halftrack supply vehicle! The rear treads I might keep or just make my own open system of bogies like on a WW2 M3 and use spare chimera tracks and road wheels. As someone mentioned about a million pages ago it does seem daft that the vehicle has those fenders AND enclosed track sides. The unused track units might be suitable for making some small support weapons though, a Rapier maybe.

The Scions box I'm really only getting because of all the goodies included in it, from what I've seen of the sprue there seems to be a load of kit that I could redistribute to my existing army. The volleygun looks pants though and why didn't they just do plastic Ksarkin hellguns??

The Hydra/Wyvern kit I actually quite like. I really don't care if its opened topped or not. I'd have preferred the gunner to be sitting rather than standing and I think the designers should have included a different ammo hopper setup to differentiate the autocannons from the mortars a bit more, I mean they're basically the same gun just one has a long barrel and one doesn't, c'mon GW you could have at least included some ammo belts for the autocannons and kept the big square ammo drums for the mortars surely. That said I probably will pick up a kit at some point.

Quite liking the new camo scheme for the Cadian vehicles but the new Infantry scheme I'm not so sure about, too colourful maybe for my drab tastes!

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

As far as I know, the closest thing to the Wyvern in reality was rocket artillery, not tube artillery. Even with better auto-loaders, I'd think the recoil would prevent you using the concept to its theoretical potential.

Closest I could get is the Ontos, altough the Ontos was a 6 barreled recoiless direct fire tank.

There was not a single successful multi-barelled design with a calibre greater than 37mm to the best of my knowledge. Additional berells and loading mechanisms cost lots of weight that can be better used for ammo. Equiping one canon with a decent auto-loader offers you the same rate of fire, reduced crew requirements and increased ammo capacity. A good balistics computer can even provide simultaneous impacts on target, I think the Panzerhaubitze 2000 can shoot about 5 shots in a minute that will land inside of a 3 second window prcisely on target.
So no, this is just GW leting 5-year-old boys design their tanks again.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

As far as I know, the closest thing to the Wyvern in reality was rocket artillery, not tube artillery. Even with better auto-loaders, I'd think the recoil would prevent you using the concept to its theoretical potential.

Yep, most multiple launchers were rockets, as they don't have as much recoil. I've seen pics of some experimental mortar tube racks, but apparently they weren't such a success. I think the closest thing to the Wyvern would have been the German Panzerwerfer, a 10-tube 150mm launcher on the back of an armored halftrack. As rocket trails are easy to spot, they were designed so they could launch the rockets and drive off before the enemy artillery started shooting back.

There are some modern mortar systems that might be somewhat similar to the Wyvern, like AMOS that uses two mortar tubes with autoloaders to get a bunch of shells in the air, while the computer tinkers with their trajectories and velocities for a simultaneous impact, but obviously they are well beyond WW2 technology.

The Wyvern mortars are a bit small, though - 120-150mm seems to be the usual caliber with modern automated artillery systems, while the Wyvern looks more like a 81mm medium crew-served mortar size. IIRC one 120 mm shell has a larger blast area than two 81 mm's, so there's really no reason to use a smaller size when the system is bolted on to a vehicle.

No Image of any Catachans yet

I hope the rumors are right about the (space marine chapter tactic)ish regiment bonuses, or there is going to be a lot of supplement books

"Regimental Tactics" would be great

most people seem to hate the Taurox, so with my insanely powerful skills of engineering and race car driving, I fixed it for you all.



You're welcome, Imperial Guard.

I like the fact that the Tauros article on their blog is the article for April 1st.

Oh if only...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I've got 3 of 'em, and the things I had to do to the poor chimera kit to get them to fit were...unspeakable XD

For me it's the other way around. The hull parts that go on the Chimera fit just fine, but the gun barrels were badly warped (and straightening all four of them to be perfectly parallel is a huge pain) and all of the detail on the "back" part of the guns was miscast. Straight lines were a wavy mess, the two halves of the mold were badly offset, etc.

I don't have any Hydras, but I do have three FW Manticores which have the same base. That was the kit that taught me the benefits of the almighty GREEN STUFF, and why I continue to use it on anything not plastic to this day. We had real trouble (me and a friend of mine, putting them together at 2am in the morning... long story) getting that back plate to sit inside the Chimera hull. And the missiles were horrible. I can only imagine that it'd be worse with warped Autocannon barrels.

 notprop wrote:
Is the HB turret already in the Chimera MK2 kit?

I guess so from the lack of comments.

HA! As soon as I saw that I went and checked too. Yes, it's part of the kit now. I was just as surprised.

 Harriticus wrote:
The hydra being open-topped has some sort of purpose for GW. Either it's cheaper to make and/or harder for people to convert/kitbash with. I think that's the policy with which GW designs most of their models these days.

I should suggest an alternate to my "Don't know" or "Don't care" options because really it's unlikely to be that simple. Chances are they just designed what looks cool, but also don't care that this changes anything (assuming they know it does).

 Lone Cat wrote:
The new vehicle. "Wyvern" looks very 'new'. it looks nothing historical and it is quite like mounting Thudd gun on Chimaera chassis and its functions suppressed Griffon. nice!

Spoiler:

Or did anyone try this thing in WW2? how good it is?

Not quite the same but the closest I can think of is the Matilda Hedgehog mounting 7 x 65lb mortars. It was a development of the Royal Navy's anti-submarine weapons system of the same name..



An Aussie idea, completed in 1945 but didn't make it into combat. Supposedly would have been devastating against bunkers? So very different to a IG mortar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Is the HB turret already in the Chimera MK2 kit?

I guess so from the lack of comments.

HA! As soon as I saw that I went and checked too. Yes, it's part of the kit now. I was just as surprised.

Good so long as I wasn't the only one. Embarrassingly I own one!

in my defence it is converted to a Griffon so no turrent.

I honestly don't understand the hate on IF the hydra is open topped. For one thing, its looks really cool, and they went out of their way to model cool stuff like the like paper printouts and stuff we see servitors spewing out, which is awesome. Furthermore, even if you have a classic Hydra which is enclosed, and you play against an opponent who will make you pay points to have it "enclosed" because its not modeled that way you should run, leave everything behind and run as fast as you can, because that guy is a complete turd. So be calm, and let the rule of cool take you away!

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Furthermore, even if you have a classic Hydra which is enclosed, and you play against an opponent who will make you pay points to have it "enclosed" because its not modeled that way you should run, leave everything behind and run as fast as you can, because that guy is a complete turd. So be calm, and let the rule of cool take you away!

I suppose it will be fine, just that it will bug me a bit. I like to be wysiwyg.

So, do you think that the hydra will get a points reduction or interceptor? I am guessing one of those. as open topped would help to balance interceptor slightly. Of course, if they do get interceptor I can see the new Militarum codex being the de-facto ally for most competitive players, it would just be the first true counter to air power.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Psychic cards have a power number 1-6 on them and a primarus so I don't think they are random. I could see them being purchased individually, or specific orders being picked when psychic powers are rolled. The big news with the orders card is that there is no card for bring it down or fire on my target. I'm pretty sure that means those orders are gone.

Well, we have seen 6 of the 9 cards. Incoming! is likely gone, but Bring it Down!, Fire on my Target!, and Get Back in the Fight! may be the missing 3.

 easysauce wrote:
3 shots at range 12' and with hot shots, yes please!

Range 9" not 12". rapid fire is half range, not 12"

I will note that 3 of the missing orders all happen to be the Company Command Squad orders. I find it....difficult to imagine that the majority of the orders would be removed from only from the senior officer list. Though the Junior Officer list did lose the useless "Incoming!" order. Going to ground in your shooting phase to get 2+ to your save instead of 1+? Yeah, no thanks, especially when the Aegis is in game.

I am truly excited for Tank orders. I can only imagine the fun stuff some of the Russ variants can pull off using an orders buff.

And I'm not sure if everyone remembered the nerf to hotshot lasguns in the Transition to 5th to 6th. Sure you can move and fire, but double tap down to 9" means deepstriking has to be that much closer to be effective.

i think one of the points several people are missing on the Wyvern is there is a good chance that for mechanized artillery, your only choice will be the Hydra, Basilisk or Wyvern. The other 5E artillery tanks don't have models, and there is not an insignificant chance they will be expunged from the codex.

Command tanks, tank orders. New tank variants...
Thank you blessed Emperor.

BTW i Think the leaked weapon rules for the wyvern are incorrect., so i wouldent throw a fit over it.

See, its got 4 barrels but Heavy 2, so either its Twin linked or has additional rules. Something like the thudd gun or griffon.
Perhaps the rules we have seen for it are bogus

Might have come up already, but has anyone noticed how many lasguns are sticking out of the back of the Chimera? Looks like 5 on a side... Altered kit or just a weird picture?

 Barksdale wrote:

Spoiler:

 Happygrunt wrote:

It says that there are nine cards covering each of the orders. I wonder what the other three orders will be?

This is GW we are talking about... I wouldn't be very surprised if there is only one more card not seen.

I.E. they count the cover card and that filler card in the "nine cards"

Not going to say this is happening but it wouldn't be shocking.

 Bla_Ze wrote:
Command tanks, tank orders. New tank variants...
Thank you blessed Emperor.

BTW i Think the leaked weapon rules for the wyvern are incorrect., so i wouldent throw a fit over it.

See, its got 4 barrels but Heavy 2, so either its Twin linked or has additional rules. Something like the thudd gun or griffon.
Perhaps the rules we have seen for it are bogus

Its weapons are like the Hydra. Two weapons, each heavy 2. 4 shots in total.

 Stormonu wrote:
i think one of the points several people are missing on the Wyvern is there is a good chance that for mechanized artillery, your only choice will be the Hydra, Basilisk or Wyvern. The other 5E artillery tanks don't have models, and there is not an insignificant chance they will be expunged from the codex.

This has been talked up and down pages past. Halfsies on them going away (except the Griffon, it has an OOP GW model), halfsies think them safe because FW does models. And if the rumor that FW will become available stateside through GW is true, that will also addresses that concern.

 Trickstick wrote:
(...)

So, do you think that the hydra will get a points reduction or interceptor? I am guessing one of those. as open topped would help to balance interceptor slightly. Of course, if they do get interceptor I can see the new Militarum codex being the de-facto ally for most competitive players, it would just be the first true counter to air power.

Remember the days of 5th edition, when Hydra was an overpowered, point cost effective IG vehicle ? Vendetta spam of the last two years is no big deal, compared to Hydra spam I have witnessed back in 5th edition. It was almost as if Robin Cruddace forgot to write a "1" to make its price 175 points instead of 75 !

When 6th edition dropped, they made it skyfire, and inserted a limitation on targets for skyfire units, other targets allowing only snap shots.
Hydra was the only unit with a skyfire ability that cannot be switched off (and still is). The rule twist was purposely and solely made to nerf Hydra's blatant unbalance, while an appropriate in-codex pricing would have avoided the issue.

I don't see Hydra getting interceptor, it would make it insanely overpowered. Spammable tank with dual TL 72" range AC, firing at everything, including units coming out from reserves ?
Aaargh !

 Compel wrote:
Yeah, I've got a Mordian Iron Guard army and I use the Lieutenant from the 2nd Edition Cadian range as my Colonel.

Mostly because I figured, if there's going to be one guy in an army that has worked out armour may be a good thing in the battlefields of the 41st Millennium, it's probably the dude in charge.

Let me guess, the one with the cigar and bolter.

So, when did the old IG ranges get added back to website? Mordian, Valhallan, Tallarn...

I am VERY glad to have been proven wrong over the tank commander/order options (Thank you GW, there's hope yet).

The Wyvern looks cool but I have no need for it. It's an infantry-killer in an army of infantry killers. Don't like the new colour scheme.

Assuming there are 3 orders we haven't seen (I hope they don't count the front and end as 'cards) then I think it will be GBITF, FOMT and BID. At least, I hope they will be.

Be good if the hydra barrels fit in the Wyvern barrels - nice and easy to swap out

 Ravajaxe wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
(...)

So, do you think that the hydra will get a points reduction or interceptor? I am guessing one of those. as open topped would help to balance interceptor slightly. Of course, if they do get interceptor I can see the new Militarum codex being the de-facto ally for most competitive players, it would just be the first true counter to air power.

Remember the days of 5th edition, when Hydra was an overpowered, point cost effective IG vehicle ? Vendetta spam of the last two years is no big deal, compared to Hydra spam I have witnessed back in 5th edition. It was almost as if Robin Cruddace forgot to write a "1" to make its price 175 points instead of 75 !

When 6th edition dropped, they made it skyfire, and inserted a limitation on targets for skyfire units, other targets allowing only snap shots.
Hydra was the only unit with a skyfire ability that cannot be switched off (and still is). The rule twist was purposely and solely made to nerf Hydra's blatant unbalance, while an appropriate in-codex pricing would have avoided the issue.

I don't see Hydra getting interceptor, it would make it insanely overpowered. Spammable tank with dual TL 72" range AC, firing at everything, including units coming out from reserves ?
Aaargh !

As opposed to having a "Dedicated Anti-Air" that routinely gets Alpha Struck by the very units its designed to Counter when they fly onto the board? I will gladly pay an additional 25 points to have Interceptor added to the Hydra. At 100 points, it would be a Chimera Mounted (55) Quad Gun(50) that can't be upgraded to BS 4 by having a Platoon Commander or Vet manning it).