Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 08:11:02
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper
Nulato, AK
|
I kinda get allowing tank orders to cover vehicles other than the Russ would be OP, but why didn't they allow the TC to be mounted in other tanks? Just seems to me that it makes sense to allow HQ's in other vehicles to model things like having a Tallarn raider force commanded by a TC in a Hellhound, or that the Commissar in an armor regiment might like to ride in a Shadowsword so he doesn't have any trouble BLAM'ing a cowardly Russ crew.
-Maxgravity
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 08:33:28
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
Simplicity, and the way keywords work. Reducing the number of moving parts in this vast game is a way to gradually make it easier to control and balance.
"Tank Commander" is a unit, not an upgrade - for keyword reasons. There's no system in the game to say you can spend an extra 50 points or 5 PL to add a tank commander to a vehicle, and that vehicle then gains the OFFICER, CHARACTER etc keywords. Game doesn't work like that.
So you'd need separate datasheets for Tank Commander in Baneblade, Tank Commander in Shadowsword, Tank Comm... you get the idea.
Also, imagine an infiltrating Tank Commander in a Baneblade hitting on 3's rerolling 1's. Sounds hard to balance!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/13 08:34:05
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
Read the blog at:
https://deathbeforedishonour.co.uk/blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 08:45:47
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
They have added strategems to allow Command Chimera's (1 turn only) and Commisar Leman Russ.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 08:54:13
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
Silentz wrote:Simplicity, and the way keywords work. Reducing the number of moving parts in this vast game is a way to gradually make it easier to control and balance.
"Tank Commander" is a unit, not an upgrade - for keyword reasons. There's no system in the game to say you can spend an extra 50 points or 5 PL to add a tank commander to a vehicle, and that vehicle then gains the OFFICER, CHARACTER etc keywords. Game doesn't work like that.
So you'd need separate datasheets for Tank Commander in Baneblade, Tank Commander in Shadowsword, Tank Comm... you get the idea.
Also, imagine an infiltrating Tank Commander in a Baneblade hitting on 3's rerolling 1's. Sounds hard to balance!
Erm... CSM HQ's riding daemon cavalry do this. They lose the <Infantry> keyword and gain the <Daemon> and <Cavalry> keywords.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 09:23:08
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Arachnofiend wrote: Silentz wrote:Simplicity, and the way keywords work. Reducing the number of moving parts in this vast game is a way to gradually make it easier to control and balance.
"Tank Commander" is a unit, not an upgrade - for keyword reasons. There's no system in the game to say you can spend an extra 50 points or 5 PL to add a tank commander to a vehicle, and that vehicle then gains the OFFICER, CHARACTER etc keywords. Game doesn't work like that.
So you'd need separate datasheets for Tank Commander in Baneblade, Tank Commander in Shadowsword, Tank Comm... you get the idea.
Also, imagine an infiltrating Tank Commander in a Baneblade hitting on 3's rerolling 1's. Sounds hard to balance!
Erm... CSM HQ's riding daemon cavalry do this. They lose the <Infantry> keyword and gain the <Daemon> and <Cavalry> keywords.
And they then lose the Legion bonus because of it, which is super bogus. That's a different topic though.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 09:39:14
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller
|
Oh right. Haha. I've not seen that mechanic in any of the codexes ive got.
|
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
Read the blog at:
https://deathbeforedishonour.co.uk/blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 12:26:24
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
GW quite simply isn't very good at writing rules.
It would be fairly simple for them to have a tank commander profile not tied to a Russ and then state what vehicles they can ride in, then extend orders to those specific vehicles.
"A tank commander can be an upgrade to the following vehicles [list of IG tanks]. The tank commander may issue tank orders to the following vehicles [list of IG tanks]."
Make the profile a simple BS and Ld upgrade, like the previous codex, and call it a day. Now you can have multiple tank commanders to run a squadron of sentinels, hellhounds, and Russes.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 13:13:24
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter
|
The problem is not balancing a Shadowsword or Baneblade that hits on a 3+, Falchions and Fellblades are things, after all, but the utility of a ballistic skill upgrade and giving other vehicles the ability to re-roll 1's is priced at a certain scale.
You encounter another problem identical to the one with Conscripts, where an ability is priced as if its being used on 10-man squads when it's instead being used on squads 5 times the size.
|
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 13:34:07
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
I think the pricing of a Russ tank commander would be appropriate (if not even underpowered) when used on Hellhounds and Sentinels.
Maybe have a separate superheavy tank commander that costs more, and has different orders for superheavies only.
Either way, extending the tank commander option to Hellhounds and Sentinels is pretty reasonable with little to no major changes.
Commissar tanks would be awesome too, like in the FW lists.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 13:45:17
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Forge World's Heresy series has the Tank Commander as an upgrade that you buy in the HQ slot for X points, but you have to put him in a tank. If there is no tank in your army that fits the list of tanks he can ride, you get nothing. He doesn't really give Tank Orders though, and the list of tanks he could ride in was essentially everything up to and including superheavy tanks. Honestly, I'm a bit sad that my superheavy companies cannot have a commander who is BS3+ or whatever, but on the other hand I understand it is for balance reasons, and the "fluff" of it can be bypassed by just making the company command tank the army's Warlord. That's what I do. He doesn't get a trait, but small price to pay for fluff!
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/13 13:46:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 19:29:42
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
Manchester, UK
|
Blacksails wrote:Either way, extending the tank commander option to Hellhounds and Sentinels is pretty reasonable with little to no major changes.
Those vehicles are piloted by the most crazy, suicidal and unstable individuals in the Guard. I can understand them not getting disciplined tank commanders. Individuals probably don't live long enough to become veteran "explodey fuel crate" or "shoebox on leg" drivers.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 19:33:45
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Doesn't Cronus have some rule that lets him select any tank he wants? Shouldn't that be a good import to the TC for which tanks they command?
|
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 20:18:29
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
Not really as he's limited to those in the codex. For example, he could not be placed in a Vindicator Laser Destroyer or a Spartan Assault Tank.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 20:37:39
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Ideally the Tank Commander could be placed in any tank, since they are in the fluff. The Russ is most often used because it is the most common tank.
Realistically, Tank Commanders should be in Baneblades. Its the safest and most imposing vehicle.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 20:51:26
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Trickstick wrote: Blacksails wrote:Either way, extending the tank commander option to Hellhounds and Sentinels is pretty reasonable with little to no major changes.
Those vehicles are piloted by the most crazy, suicidal and unstable individuals in the Guard. I can understand them not getting disciplined tank commanders. Individuals probably don't live long enough to become veteran "explodey fuel crate" or "shoebox on leg" drivers.
But its a fun image!
"I remember the first Hellhound explosion I survived like it was yesterday. Well that's because it was only last week, and somehow I've survived three more since! But look at the man its made me!" says the man made mostly out of cybernetics.
To be fair, one of the hellhound variants isn't a total exploding fuel crate. Plus, GW did make a pseudo sentinel TC at some point in 7th with the sentinel formation. There is precedence. Automatically Appended Next Post: Red_Five wrote:Ideally the Tank Commander could be placed in any tank, since they are in the fluff. The Russ is most often used because it is the most common tank.
Realistically, Tank Commanders should be in Baneblades. Its the safest and most imposing vehicle.
Tank commanders command from whatever tank squadron they're in charge of. A tank commander represents the lowest level tank officer, which commands a company in 40k fluff. A hellhound company then, by extension, would have a tank commander, no matter how suicidal or insane that individual may be. Same goes for all vehicles except for transports, who fall under their respective infantry companies.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/13 20:54:41
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 21:03:46
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
Manchester, UK
|
Blacksails wrote:But its a fun image!
"I remember the first Hellhound explosion I survived like it was yesterday. Well that's because it was only last week, and somehow I've survived three more since! But look at the man its made me!" says the man made mostly out of cybernetics.
To be fair, my lead hellhound has the commander sticking out of the cupola, wearing a gasmask, holding a chainsword and wielding a hand flamer. I imagine he has survived a few explosions and then just ran at the enemy whilst on fire.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 21:15:58
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Trickstick wrote: Blacksails wrote:But its a fun image!
"I remember the first Hellhound explosion I survived like it was yesterday. Well that's because it was only last week, and somehow I've survived three more since! But look at the man its made me!" says the man made mostly out of cybernetics.
To be fair, my lead hellhound has the commander sticking out of the cupola, wearing a gasmask, holding a chainsword and wielding a hand flamer. I imagine he has survived a few explosions and then just ran at the enemy whilst on fire.
I approve of this commander. The kind of commander I aspire to be some day.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 21:21:10
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Ghaz wrote:
Not really as he's limited to those in the codex. For example, he could not be placed in a Vindicator Laser Destroyer or a Spartan Assault Tank.
Still though it would be a good basis for a rule that would broaden a TC's choices without writing up a bajillion new datasheets.
Or does cornis have a bajillion datasheets?
|
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/13 23:42:00
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:Forge World's Heresy series has the Tank Commander as an upgrade that you buy in the HQ slot for X points, but you have to put him in a tank. If there is no tank in your army that fits the list of tanks he can ride, you get nothing. He doesn't really give Tank Orders though, and the list of tanks he could ride in was essentially everything up to and including superheavy tanks.
Honestly, I'm a bit sad that my superheavy companies cannot have a commander who is BS3+ or whatever, but on the other hand I understand it is for balance reasons, and the "fluff" of it can be bypassed by just making the company command tank the army's Warlord. That's what I do. He doesn't get a trait, but small price to pay for fluff!
Actually in fluff Pask has commanded most Leman Russ variants but turned down the offer of commanding a Baneblade so certainly works for him.
In reference to the other persons comment that they thought Tank Commander cost would be balanced for other vehicles it is a 45 point upgrade, its balanced on the Russ but would probably be overpowered on a Baneblade variant at that cost and it would actually double the cost of an Armoured Sentinel for a 33% increase in firepower so way underpowered there, Since sentinels are one of the few vehicles for Guard which remain Squadron after deploying perhaps a Sergeant equivalent Sentinel Commander would be a cool addition..
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/14 03:13:25
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper
Nulato, AK
|
The problems with a higher Ballistic skill on a superheavy could be balanced with a rule where the Baneblade Commander doesn't improve the BS. Call the rule "A More Detached Style of Command" or something and realistically fluff it out as the tank simply being too big for him to serve as gunner as well. You might even be able to balance it by giving them 2 CP since the command gear is superior on those ancient relics.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/14 04:36:07
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer
|
Besides Commanders, I wish there was an option for Aces to represent veteran crew. Basically a +1 to BS, at least for the turret weapon, possibly extra Wounds - like special characters have. No command aura or ability to give orders, just a tougher, more accurate tank.
It would also be nice to be able to have Commanders for other tanks as well, though as mentioned above it'd have to balanced out pointswise.
|
It never ends well |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/14 06:10:47
Subject: Re:Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Commissar tanks are now a thing in the codex.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/14 23:39:37
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Though they cant shoot people to prevent a unit breaking unfortunately which is the most valuable part of their function, the commissar tank just has the increased leadership aura.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/10/14 23:59:21
Subject: Any idea why GW only allowed TC's in the Russ?
|
 |
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say
|
WatcherZero wrote:Though they cant shoot people to prevent a unit breaking unfortunately which is the most valuable part of their function, the commissar tank just has the increased leadership aura.
They never could. What’s he going to do, use a punisher cannon for summary executions?
|
|
 |
 |
|