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.

During early 2011 I created the Squall MIssile Launcher as a way of giving Black Templars better ranged power without giving them Devestators. 2 days later the FAQ updated Cyclone Missile Launchers, making the Squall rather pointless. This far into 6th edition, though, I remembered it and thought I'd turn it into an AA vehicle. Below that is the idea I had for a vehicle-mounted Thunderfire Cannon-esque weapon. So, without further ado, here's the Squall MRLS updated for 6th edition!

Squall ECM vehicle




Predator Shatterer



Hit me with feedback!

ECM/ECCM is not something often done in 40k. This is something I'd expect to see from Tau, Eldar, or Necrons, and not marines. Particularly the zealots over with the Black Templars.

That out of the way...

Thematically, this seems better suited as a whirlwind mod then a pred. It share nothing but the front armor with a pred, but has a lot of similarities with the WW. I might also drop the ECM fluff, and go with a more codex approved force field generator for the 5++ save. If you want to keep it as ECM, I might re-do the save to granting shrouded to nearby units, rather then a straight up invuln.

Instead of making up new guns, I'd look to use what we have. I'd much rather have a predator with an icarus lascannon in the turret and cyclone/typhoon missile launcher sponsons then something that's completely homebrew. Or an icarus LC with a co-axil typhoon, with force field generators hanging off the sponson mounts.

The imperium of man is not particularly innovative. If you are going to make something new, it's probably going to be something old, with one thing swapped out. The Squall is just to much at once.

On that note, the Shatterer makes a lot of sense, not as a pred variant, but a vindicator. You want a TFC on a tank chassis? Do it. From a mechanics/engineering standpoint, swapping out the battle cannon for a thunderfire is a reasonable swap. I think putting it in a turret would be a little too much though. You trade the techmarine, artillery rules, and camping in bolstered ruins for an AV 13 front plate. Seems pretty fair. You get to fire on the move, but have the range so you don't have to. Speaking of range, you drop the Vindi's flaw of having to move up to expose side armor to get the shot. Keeping it with a normal TFC in a Vindi hull lets you stick with tried, tested, technology. No need for new fangled stuff. That's the Tau's game.

I did consider putting the TFC in a Vindicator chassi, it was pretty much 50/50 between that or Pred.

The only thing that's really new on the Squall is the ECM suit and the new ammo, otherwise it's pretty much a bigger CML. I made it AV13 because it can't fire indirectly and because it'd be rather bad at shooting down aircraft if it were AV11 front, as most fliers have the capacity to deal with AV11 with ease. The reasoning behind the save generated being Invulnerable as opposed to Cover was because I, frankly, wanted something that wouldn't be completely negated by Tau. The rationale would be that the ECM system screws with the sensitive Tau equipment. It'd tie in with the Damocles Gulf and Nimbosa Crusades being against the Tau as well. Game-wise it'd give Templars a chance to cross the battlefield without being blown to bits as fast. I liked your "shield sponson" suggestion a lot!

OK, I see where you are coming from, but an invuln doesn't seem the best way to represent ECM. Does ECM help vs. close combat? As much as it doesn't help vs. Tau with their marker lights, I think a cover save is a better way of representing it. To be honest, I've not read the new Tau book, so don't know a way to counter their tricks without being overtly rude.

Something like "Ignore the first markerlight hit on the tank" is just giving the finger to Tau players, while it might be an accurate representation of an ECM system. I dislike hombrew rules that are designed as a hard counter to one army. To me it feels like list tailoring turned up to 11. "I couldn't tailor a list hard enough against you with just the units in the book, so I made new ones..." That said, real armies are going to tailor against their foes, particularly on long campaigns, so it makes a little more sense from a fluff standpoint then a game POV.

From a fluff standpoint, if you want to keep the invuln, I'd go with force fields. I could totally see templars mounting FFs on a tank to cover crazed troops long enough for them to chansword xenos to death. If you want to go with ECM, and dislike the shrouded idea, which after all does not solve the problem you created it for, we need to find another option.

You could do something like the old night fighting rules, where anyone targeting a unit within 6" of the tank needs to get over the range with <dice roll> How many dice/multiplayers can be adjusted for balance. This, while countering the Tau long range fire, will not stop someone shooting a melta gun over iron sights. Which feels right for ECM.

BS modification or snapshots is another way to do this, but gets ugly with balancing and rules interactions.

Back to the missiles and my previous point about making up too many new things. If you just made the turret ML a heavy 3 cyclone (or TL'd H2) with flack missiles it would still get the job done. And eliminate another case of "What does that do again" from your opponents. Also, just relying on haywire makes them mostly useless against FMCs. But your fluff, this is fine, but generically you might want to make it less of a niche ammo type.

Just more random thoughts, hope they help.

I am a complete idiot; I didn't think of the fact that the invulnerable save would work in CC AND I didn't think of just bringing old night-fight or Daemonhunters-style Shrouding back! That makes much more sense! Frankly, I don't care how much "tailoring" it is, the deck is stacked in favour of shooting enough as it is. Something like "units within 6" can't be targeted unless distance to enemy =< 5D6". The cost would probably have to go up to 200+ though. MEQ Infantry Assault units on foot really need something going for them, though. I'd argue 200 points would be fair, it'd also add some interesting target priority issues ("do I target the tank or the assault units?".

Regarding the EM missile, it'd still force grounding tests on FMCs. I suppose one could simply add a two-shot Flakk missile and call it a day, though.