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.

Made an update to the IA I, volume I rules. Looking for feedback.

Nomenclature: Turret Emplacement
Points: 60
Force Organization: Troops.

Ballistic Skill: 3
Front Armour: 12
Side Armour: 12
Rear Armour: 11
Hull Points: 2
Unit Type: Vehicle (Heavy)
Unit Composition: 1 Turret Emplacement

Wargear:
• Heavy Bolter
• Searchlight

Special Rules:
• Immobile: During play, Turret Emplacements are treated as Immobilized Vehicles. Turret Emplacements do not award victory points for being immobilized. Whenever a Turret Emplacement suffers an Immobilized result or effect, roll on the Vehicle Damage table instead.
• Fortified: A Crew Shaken result or effect against a Turret Emplacement may be ignored on a roll of 4+. This roll should be made immediately after the result or effect was applied.
• Hold the Line: Turret Emplacements may be used in any detachment for the Astra Militarum, Genestealer Cults, or the Lost and the Damned. They may not be taken as compulsory choices for any detachment.

Options:
• May include up to two additional Turret Emplacements for the point cost listed above.

• Any model may replace its Heavy Bolter with one of the following:
o Heavy Flamer – free
o Multi-laser - free
o Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter – 5 pts/model
o Autocannon – 5 pts/model
o Missile Launcher – 5 pts/model
o Lascannon – 10 pts/model

• Alternatively, all models may replace its Heavy Bolter with one of the following. If they do so, the unit changes its Force Organization role to Heavy Support.
o Battle Cannon – 50 pts/model
o Exterminator Autocannon – 30 pts/model
o Vanquisher Battle Cannon – 35 pts/model
o Eradicator Nova Cannon – 20 pts/model
o Demolisher Siege Cannon – 70 pts/model
o Punisher Gatling Cannon – 40 pts/model
o Executioner Plasma Cannon – 55 pts/model

• Any unit may take the following upgrades:
o Smoke Launchers – 5 pts/model
o Camo Netting – 15 pts/model
o Augar Array – 25 pts/model

I love that you gave prices for the heavy support stuff.

After putting together a few knight gallants, ive got a couple extra battle cannons and such.. Cool to be a see a point cost breakdown for them.

IF i wanted to say implanted it in a bit of terrain or on a rhino/landraider.. would i just tac these cost onto the other items costs.. or is this more like just gun and turret for it, like the lower half of a quad gun battery array.

Edit: And it takes up a single heavy slot for up to three battle cannon emplacements. Nice

Feedback/questions: Would three of the Demolisher Cannons grant the Apoc sized blast template or just the three shots?
Also can you add a hemotype reactor to the executioner plasma cannon and make it a larger blast?

Just to clarify, we are talking about these:


No apocalyptic blasts. Just normal blasts as if a Leman Russ squadron.

 danjbrierton wrote:
Just to clarify, we are talking about these:


No apocalyptic blasts. Just normal blasts as if a Leman Russ squadron.

How would you calculate armour facings off of that thing? As logically the turret would rotate over a game.
It should either be a consistent all around armour. Or perhaps have a rule along the lines of the front it directly pointing towards the unit it shot at in it's shooting phase (do not rotate the model again if that target moves though).

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 danjbrierton wrote:
Just to clarify, we are talking about these:


No apocalyptic blasts. Just normal blasts as if a Leman Russ squadron.

How would you calculate armour facings off of that thing? As logically the turret would rotate over a game.
It should either be a consistent all around armour. Or perhaps have a rule along the lines of the front it directly pointing towards the unit it shot at in it's shooting phase (do not rotate the model again if that target moves though).

The turret would swivel, but I imagine that the base it's mounted on would not. Just say the side with the entry door on it is the "rear" because the door is theoretically less sturdy than a wall of metal. Also, having a rear armor value that is lower than the front/sides is important if you want these things to be killable in melee by various strength 4 units but also don't want them to get shot to death by bolters.

These look like they'd be enjoyable to use and play against. My only concern is, "Does this allow you spam sufficiently numerous armored units to make it impossible for your opponent to realistically take them all down?" For instance, could you pull off shenanigans by taking a wall of turrets that block off your artillery? Or simply scatter these things around your objectives and give your opponent a bunch of AV12 hull points to tear through? Not that similar issues don't already exist with drop pods... I'd totally play against these. At least once.

I would say that for those turrets the turret itself would be the most significant thing for armour, but the base does simplify things.
And AV11 is immune to strength 4 in melee.

Also I think they would probably be better off in the fortification slot, since they are at least semi permanent emplacements. Maybe they could have a formation that includes 3 such turrets or something?

I struggled with making them vehicles over fortifications. I decided on vehicles for 2 reasons: fortification rules are overly complicated and massive adjustments to automated fire need to be made, and force org slots.

In the defense of a planet, the guard employs these wildly across strategic places/objectives. to say only one squad of 3 is allowable for a single fortification slot just isn't enough.

AV would be based on the base, not the turret.

Also, compare these to a chimera. For 5 pts more, a guard player can spam a chimera wall to shield the artillery, and it's mobile. These offer much less LOS blockage and foot print, making it easier to hit whats behind.

Would you rather face an army of these or an armored company of Russes?

-DB

May I suggest a rule that forces the turret to use its side or front armour at all times unless an attack specifies otherwise? For example, a Mawloc's Terror from the Deep specifies the rear armour, representing its less-armoured uncarriage, and Barrage weapons use Side Armour to represent the lighter top armour. CC also specifies Rear to represent weakpoints.

So you could have F: 12 S: 12 R: 10, with rear being the target for melee and attacks like the Mawloc.

 Deadshot wrote:
May I suggest a rule that forces the turret to use its side or front armour at all times unless an attack specifies otherwise? For example, a Mawloc's Terror from the Deep specifies the rear armour, representing its less-armoured uncarriage, and Barrage weapons use Side Armour to represent the lighter top armour. CC also specifies Rear to represent weakpoints.

So you could have F: 12 S: 12 R: 10, with rear being the target for melee and attacks like the Mawloc.

That would make sense.
Tank turrets commonly have very thick fronts and roughly equal side/rear thicknesses.

Although actually I think the heavy support emplacements would be better as a separate unit, probably with lower armour values as well.

Then you could perhaps have front AV13 for the Leman Russ style turrets and probably 11 for the Basilisk style ones.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
May I suggest a rule that forces the turret to use its side or front armour at all times unless an attack specifies otherwise? For example, a Mawloc's Terror from the Deep specifies the rear armour, representing its less-armoured uncarriage, and Barrage weapons use Side Armour to represent the lighter top armour. CC also specifies Rear to represent weakpoints.

So you could have F: 12 S: 12 R: 10, with rear being the target for melee and attacks like the Mawloc.

That would make sense.
Tank turrets commonly have very thick fronts and roughly equal side/rear thicknesses.

Although actually I think the heavy support emplacements would be better as a separate unit, probably with lower armour values as well.

Then you could perhaps have front AV13 for the Leman Russ style turrets and probably 11 for the Basilisk style ones.

I thought about doing this, but I felt like it would be a pain in the ass having to explain the difference to people when the chimera/leman russ emplacements already look very similar (the base is identical). I'd be open to playing with it though.