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.

Noticed https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Blog/Razorback_Rikarius_ENG.pdf on GW's web blog. First thought it was a nice tip of the hat to a conversion in a recently White Dwarf featured army.

So what say you Dakka, would you allow it? Any problems with it?

At 90 Points? Yeah, seems fine.

I think there's an error on the sheet? It says the Razorback Rikarius sacrifices it's transport for the siege shield and hurricane bolters, but it still says it can hold five models without Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think there's an error on the sheet? It says the Razorback Rikarius sacrifices it's transport for the siege shield and hurricane bolters, but it still says it can hold five models without Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky rules.

Razorbacks normally hold 6.

This is really cool, I like the way it looks and plays, I would allow it.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think there's an error on the sheet? It says the Razorback Rikarius sacrifices it's transport for the siege shield and hurricane bolters, but it still says it can hold five models without Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky rules.

Razorbacks normally hold 6.

I know, but it says in the fluff entry that it "sacrificed all of it's transport capacity" for that. If the fluff's not right, that's fine by me, but at the moment, there's a disconnect between fluff and crunch.

Whether it's usable or not it's hilarious and I want to build one now.

I may have to borrow the hurricane bolters from the Stormraven. I'm hoping it's the right size

 WarbossDakka wrote:
I may have to borrow the hurricane bolters from the Stormraven. I'm hoping it's the right size

It should be. The side doors are standardized between the Rhino, Land Raider, and Stormraven chassis, you could theoretically put sponsons from any of them on the others (no, please don't try and write Stormraven Redeemer rules, it won't end well)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think there's an error on the sheet? It says the Razorback Rikarius sacrifices it's transport for the siege shield and hurricane bolters, but it still says it can hold five models without Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky rules.

Razorbacks normally hold 6.

I know, but it says in the fluff entry that it "sacrificed all of it's transport capacity" for that. If the fluff's not right, that's fine by me, but at the moment, there's a disconnect between fluff and crunch.

Right now transport capacity reads none. Maybe it was corrected.

So if it has no transport capacity, why is it called a transport?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So if it has no transport capacity, why is it called a transport?

It does, the capacity is 1 less and you cant have any bulky.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So if it has no transport capacity, why is it called a transport?

It does, the capacity is 1 less and you cant have any bulky.

Check the updated page-it's transport capacity is now 0.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So if it has no transport capacity, why is it called a transport?

It does, the capacity is 1 less and you cant have any bulky.

Check the updated page-it's transport capacity is now 0.

Ok well when it 1st came out it wasn't. And Im fine with it not being transport, the fluff was to make it not a transport.

Oh, yeah-I don't mind that at all.

But it's vehicle type is Tank, Transport... Despite it having no transport capacity.

Basically the damage output of 5 man Fist Termies with an assault cannon for less than half the cost.

Yes I want one of these :|

Nice idea, some options for the asscans would be nicer.

Interesting rules, are there any other similar Webstore rules?

Also, don't know where people are getting the "5 Transport Cap" thing from, clearly says "Transport: None".

 Valkyrie wrote:
Interesting rules, are there any other similar Webstore rules?

Also, don't know where people are getting the "5 Transport Cap" thing from, clearly says "Transport: None".

It's been updated. It used to say 5 models.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, yeah-I don't mind that at all.

But it's vehicle type is Tank, Transport... Despite it having no transport capacity.

I know this is a freebie, but couldn't the design team at least take 10 minutes to validate things?

 Stormonu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, yeah-I don't mind that at all.

But it's vehicle type is Tank, Transport... Despite it having no transport capacity.

I know this is a freebie, but couldn't the design team at least take 10 minutes to validate things?

I mean its a home rule fun idea that someone had, they are just inspiring the narrative players

 Stormonu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, yeah-I don't mind that at all.

But it's vehicle type is Tank, Transport... Despite it having no transport capacity.

I know this is a freebie, but couldn't the design team at least take 10 minutes to validate things?

They can't do it for the Draft FAQs or even many of the rules that were complicated by the new Shooting Sequence, why should they bother here?

 malamis wrote:
Basically the damage output of 5 man Fist Termies with an assault cannon for less than half the cost.

Yes I want one of these :|

Imho, If this thing stays stationary, yes you are right, its fire power are "decently good" for its cost.
But once it moved, ONLY one of its weapons can be fired at full effect. Considering its weapons are ALL Short-ranged, unlike a Tri-Lascannon Predator, it has to move frequently to get enemy into firing range, So your additional cost of 15pts (and the transport capacity) over a normal TL AsC Razorback only bring back 6 snap shooting Bolters (although being twin linked). In view of that, unless it get "Fast" type, or gain PotMS or can be somehow fit into a Medusa Strike Force, it would be a No from me.

Imho, this issue reflects how ridiculously bad rule design are applied to 40k Tanks.