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.

OK. I think at this point I may have almost all the bugs worked out. My next step is going to be making it presentable

It is looking good so far.

Three things I noticed.

Did overpenitration get nixed, or is that planned for afuture update? Maybe I just missed it, if so I apologize.

I would suggest somehow adding an example of each vehicle type for each size just to prevent certain sizing shenanigans.

For long barrel there should be something that says how much longer a barrel can be than the normal so you don't have someone adding a 6inch barrel to a rhino or something silly like that. I played a game recently where the guy used a home built deimos predator. The vehicle was about the right size except the gun barrel which added 6 inches to the barrel of the magna melta cannon.

Derp! I forgot to add it, expect it in a few days as v4.5
For the second point, I can certainly give that a go. You can never have too many examples!

Speaking of, what did you think of the additional build-a-weapon examples?

Speaking of, what did you think of the additional build-a-weapon examples?

I like them. May I suggest adding one more making use of one of the add after all other calculations one. It SHOULD be a no brainer, but I find a person is sometimes surprised by how often the no brainer things are what confuses people or people get into RAI vs RAW arguments over.

I think for walkers and other vehicles with bases we should include what size base they should be on.

I didn't think it was needed, but then I played a guy in my local group yesterday who used these rules to make a Super heavy dreadnought that was the size of a regular dreadnought on a regular dreadnought base. I flat out told him no. We need to make sure that there are rules that doesn't allow underhanded things like this. It was a cool conversion, but no way am I playing against a superheavy that is the size of a dreadnought and is hard to target and can take cover with impunity.

Ouch, that would be a bother. I can't do standard base sizes though. A warwalker is a size category smaller statistically than a dreadnought, but they have the same base. A superheavy should look the part, the only one that didn't was the transcendent C'tan, and he isn't anymore.

Edit: glad you guys are utilizing these rules! Nice to hear that peoples creations are being brought to games

Super heavies should at least be on a Imperial Knight sized base. Most super heavy tanks are at least that big anyways.

 adamsouza wrote:
Super heavies should at least be on a Imperial Knight sized base. Most super heavy tanks are at least that big anyways.

I'd agree with this. I'll add it to the next update!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Ouch, that would be a bother. I can't do standard base sizes though. A warwalker is a size category smaller statistically than a dreadnought, but they have the same base. A superheavy should look the part, the only one that didn't was the transcendent C'tan, and he isn't anymore.

Edit: glad you guys are utilizing these rules! Nice to hear that peoples creations are being brought to games

Yeah, the super heavies is the biggest issue, but a lot can be solved by saying if it is x size it gets y base for things that have bases.

And maybe say if It is modeled after a certain unit or similar to a certain unit the model must be about that size.

That should fix a lot of shenanigans of that sort.

I will say most people are honest, but there is always going to be that one guy who will take advantage of any loop hole they can. A lot of the rules for things need to be written taking those people into account.

I bashed out the Wyvern mortars using 2x BS3 Ork Lobbas (15pts ea). IC is a 75% bump, Shred is a 50% bump. So basically the Mortars should cost 67.5 points. The basic Wyvern chassis and BS3 Heavy Bolter add another 25pts. So now the Wyvern costs about 90-95pts, by the VDC.

I can use this as a tool to verify costing, but I'll first ask - am I using this right?

Yoyoyo wrote:
I bashed out the Wyvern mortars using 2x BS3 Ork Lobbas (15pts ea). IC is a 75% bump, Shred is a 50% bump. So basically the Mortars should cost 67.5 points. The basic Wyvern chassis and BS3 Heavy Bolter add another 25pts. So now the Wyvern costs about 90-95pts, by the VDC.

I can use this as a tool to verify costing, but I'll first ask - am I using this right?

Keep in mind he has things costed to come out 5-15 points more expensive than ordinary stuff and about 40points more expensive for super heavies to help prevent people from abusing the system. So keep that in mind if you are using it to double check the costs of vehicles.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I bashed out the Wyvern mortars using 2x BS3 Ork Lobbas (15pts ea). IC is a 75% bump, Shred is a 50% bump. So basically the Mortars should cost 67.5 points. The basic Wyvern chassis and BS3 Heavy Bolter add another 25pts. So now the Wyvern costs about 90-95pts, by the VDC.

I can use this as a tool to verify costing, but I'll first ask - am I using this right?

Don't have the book n front of me, but the lobbas are large blast, aren't they? That would make them more expensive to start than the small blast mortars. But yes, I think you are doing it correctly

^also, what he said

You may need to bump up the max possible troop capacity to 25 for large vehicles. I mention this because of the Spartan Assault Tank. It has a Transport capacity of 25.

Maybe add rules for the Caestus Assault Ram might be useful. Namely the Misericorde. Which treats power armor, artificer armor, and Terminator armor as ignoring bulky for transport capacity. The ramming rules are neat too.

The Misercorde rule might be a point savings on a transport if you look at it as treating all models as Bulky.

Jefffar wrote:
The Misercorde rule might be a point savings on a transport if you look at it as treating all models as Bulky.

You mean something that does the opposite or Misercorde don't you? Treat models as Bulky. Would this treat Bulky as very bulky, and very bulky as extremely bulky?

There are always going to be vehicles that break norms, and the spartan assault vehicle is one of them. I didn't include that level of transport for the same reason I didn't include the 5th hull point option. Those things are rare enough that I didn't want to meddle with it untill I had everything clean cut and finalized. I'll see what I can don't or future updates

 NorseSig wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The Misercorde rule might be a point savings on a transport if you look at it as treating all models as Bulky.

You mean something that does the opposite or Misercorde don't you? Treat models as Bulky. Would this treat Bulky as very bulky, and very bulky as extremely bulky?

No, the Assault Ram gets to transport 10 bulky terminators, but it can only carry 10 non bulky PA iinstead of the 20 it should.

I know that's not the way its worded, but that's the effect and making that restriction a penalty can help explain why the Assault Ram is surprisingly cheap for a flying land raider.

Jefffar wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The Misercorde rule might be a point savings on a transport if you look at it as treating all models as Bulky.

You mean something that does the opposite or Misercorde don't you? Treat models as Bulky. Would this treat Bulky as very bulky, and very bulky as extremely bulky?

No, the Assault Ram gets to transport 10 bulky terminators, but it can only carry 10 non bulky PA iinstead of the 20 it should.

I know that's not the way its worded, but that's the effect and making that restriction a penalty can help explain why the Assault Ram is surprisingly cheap for a flying land raider.

That is what I said. It ignores bulky rule for terminators so it can carry ten of them or carry a max of 10 power armored/artificer armored men. Said it twice. Misercorde is actually an upgrade it modifies a carrying capacity of 10 to ignore bulky rule.

Why no holofields for Eldar? Also, I'm very interested in seeing your Wraithknight rules in full.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Why no holofields for Eldar? Also, I'm very interested in seeing your Wraithknight rules in full.

Holofields are a codex specific upgrade for eldar, Harlequins don't have those.

Towering Destroyer Knight 500points

Superheavy (6hp) 100 points
Armor value (12 12 11) 35 closed top 5
4 attacks@;WS4 (ferocious x2) strD ap2( melee weapon@ str10 =12 points+Titan killer upgrade 120 points)132points
Twinlinked suncannon @ BS4( star cannon 25+ gattling upgrade 31 points+blast upgrade 38 points) 94 points
2x shuriken cannons@ BS4 32 points
Titan holofields 100 points

There you go! I magnetized my wraithknight to allow this configuration, that way he can serve double duty. To be fair,he hasn't been a wraithknight since I created this variant

Edit: he's initiative 5

I'm not sure I'm understanding, because flickerfields are a Codex-specific Dark Eldar wargear and Harlequins don't get those either.

The Wrathknight is cool. I've been vaguely working on rules for mine, though she is (or they are, though the angry twin is dominant - it's complicated) a special character who can punch Titans to death. I'll be more inclined to give her actual rules when I actually have the model finished (for an idea of how long I take to do anything, consider that I've had her since the Wraithknight was released but so far have only done so much as to take her off sprue, despite having a lot of conversion plans).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I'm not sure I'm understanding, because flickerfields are a Codex-specific Dark Eldar wargear and Harlequins don't get those either.

The Wrathknight is cool. I've been vaguely working on rules for mine, though she is (or they are, though the angry twin is dominant - it's complicated) a special character who can punch Titans to death. I'll be more inclined to give her actual rules when I actually have the model finished (for an idea of how long I take to do anything, consider that I've had her since the Wraithknight was released but so far have only done so much as to take her off sprue, despite having a lot of conversion plans).

The harlequins have their own holofields(they grant a 5+ invuln save unless immobilized) that's what that particular upgrade is. Also, flicker fields aren't purchasable in a list of wargear in the dark eldar codex, they only go on the venom. I added it as a purchasable upgrade in my V.D.R. so people can build variant versions of the venom. I have a few old school warwalkers that I'm turning into "wardancers" for my Harlequin army, as well as a nightscythe that will be a "storm weaver" flyer for the same army. That stats for those are in the custom unit for 40k thread

Edit: so I understand the conversion dilemma

Yes, but I'm not talking about Harlequin holofields, just the regular ones. What if I, say, wanted to put holofields on the Crimson Hunter? Would the Codex vehicle upgrade list pricing work? I just find it strange that there are Dark Eldar flickerfields and Harlequin holofields (which come with mirage launchers) but no CWE holofields except Titan ones.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Yes, but I'm not talking about Harlequin holofields, just the regular ones. What if I, say, wanted to put holofields on the Crimson Hunter? Would the Codex vehicle upgrade list pricing work? I just find it strange that there are Dark Eldar flickerfields and Harlequin holofields (which come with mirage launchers) but no CWE holofields except Titan ones.

Yes, if you wanted to add the normal holofields to a flyer you created using these rules, and the cost listed in the vehicle upgrades section of the codex, you can. The wraith based flyer has spirit stones, so there's a precedent. However, if you built an exact replica of the crimson hunter to just slap the holofields rule onto it, it would be going against the thought behind the V.D.R. the purpose is for modeling new and interesting vehicles, not just buffing current ones.

Any other questions, anyone?

Edit: V5 update uploaded.

Big shootas and Rockets are 5 pts codex wide now to put on any vehicle or model (refering to orks more so than grots) . Why is it listed as 6? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm confused.

 Yaavaragefinkinman wrote:
Big shootas and Rockets are 5 pts codex wide now to put on any vehicle or model (refering to orks more so than grots) . Why is it listed as 6? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm confused.

The points values in the VDR are based on math and not the cost of codex upgrades. Also, they are purposely slightly higher to discourage min-maxing cheaper versions of codex units.

They are 5 to add to things, but when adding them you may be limited as to whether or not you can shoot with them. Making them a point more keeps people from wanting to slap a pile of them on a walker to shred infantry.

Also, what he said ^

What do you guys think of the massive sized vehicles?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They are 5 to add to things, but when adding them you may be limited as to whether or not you can shoot with them. Making them a point more keeps people from wanting to slap a pile of them on a walker to shred infantry.

Also, what he said ^

What do you guys think of the massive sized vehicles?

It is great and fills the gap that was there. People can now make overpriced uber Spartan Assault tanks, though I don't know how they can get any more uber lol. But seriously it filled the gap that was there. Keep up the excellent work.

Thanks! Looking forward to the admech skitarii, I'll be able to add their rules and weapons once they are released.

I have a friend who does graphics design, I'm going to have her make this thing pretty so you can print out a legit looking document. Going to be awesome!

Edit for autocorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I've had two people ask me so far, and I wanted to throw it out into the universe. If you purchase the flyer speed, and the jump upgrade for a walker, would it be overpowered to run it as a walker with flying monstrous creature rules? Including the caveat that if it takes a glancing or penetrating hit, it takes a grounding test.

What do you think?

A quick question. Do fire points figure at all into the cost of a vehicle?

Nope. The fire points have never really made an impact in cost as far as I can tell. Mainly because they vary so wildly in effectiveness based on the unit inside. If the vehicle is empty, why am I paying points for fire points?

Now I had considered that when I decided points for open topped, but with the ability to give the unit inside the option to assault from it or fire all their weapons from the relative safety of the transport, it should cost a little extra.

When modeling the vehicles, if you are basing it off of a current design, use the fire and access points the vehicle already has. It will help tie your creation into the rest of the armies menagerie.