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. |
|
|
2017/09/09 07:18:10
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
Ok so bear with me, I was looking at the Legioones Astartes red book, page 10 in the little box labeled "Using additional super-heavy and orbital flight win units". It's basically a list of alternate super heavy and flyer units that can be taken in addition to the units listed for Age of Darkness armies Lords of Wars. It mentions pretty much all the baneblades, and even macharius and Crassus tanks (and variants) but doesn't mention the Malcador variants? I'm asking because I would like to fit in my Valdor and or Infernus into my Legion and or Militia list but it seems that Malcador variants were overlooked in this box out probably because the Malcador battle tank is actually a heavy Support choice for legions already. Does anyone know of any FAQ or ruling that could allow me to use these models with legion or Militia armies?
So basically turns out that my impression that pretty much all Imperial Superheavies were up for grabs as Lords of War was wrong, but I would be more than happy to be corrected. Thanks for the help!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/09 07:27:36
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 07:57:56
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Steady Dwarf Warrior
The last Squat stronghold
|
The alternative LoW list doesn't mention Malcadors probably because almost every army gets them as heavy support choice right now, at least the variants with battle cannon and TW lascannons, but Solar Auxilia gets infernus as well as heavy support.
Don't think that there have been any FAQs for HH books since the errata and FAQ for book 1 which was updated last time back in 2013. Also, keep in mind that Militia list is not allowed to use the alternative LoW choices from the list.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 08:34:21
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
That not all the variants existed at the time would be my interpretation, same as not being able to use the annihilator turret on the predator.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 10:13:20
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
All of the malacador variants existed during the Heresy and are present in other Army lists. Maybe I'll bring this up to a TO.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 10:37:55
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Steady Dwarf Warrior
The last Squat stronghold
|
I do not recall seeing Malcador defender in any book so I think that is only variant missing. Unless it is shown in some Astartes or Mechanicum lists since I haven't read them that much unlike Solar Auxilia and Militia.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 10:46:58
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
Hmmm always forget about the defender... I don't recall seeing that anywhere. still the alternative LoW box allows Macharius and Crassus tanks that aren't in any 30k list and technically weren't even evented until after in think in the case of the macharius at least. Defender should be allowed just to "represent local tank classes" etc...
|
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 12:30:07
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Steady Dwarf Warrior
The last Squat stronghold
|
Think they said in the book that Macharius' and Crassus' variants were some random engines of war and not the actual said models and same went for marauder variants. I believe that book two said that you can play play Imperial tanks found in FW books and you can give them the marine crew update for 15 points.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/09 17:36:42
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
HH Legions red book, page 10 box out, paraphrased: You may take from other sources: Baneblade and shadowsword variants Macharius and variants (representing indigenous war machines) Crassus and variants (indigenous war machines) Marauder bomber and destroyers, thunderbolt heavy fighters, avenger strike fighters. Minotaur artillery tanks You may take space marine crew and battle servitor control for SHVs and flyers respectively. Some vehicles are not listed so you cannot formally take them, but I don't see why you couldn't, with approval, use them in a casual game. The intention of the majority of the HH rulebooks is to go and have fun in a new setting rather than to restrict players. This is even encouraged in the black books.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/09 17:37:06
|
|
|
|
2017/09/11 06:54:44
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Rules wise you can use any in the IA apocalyspe or any FW book as far as I know so your good there! My guess is that since the malcadors now have HH rules they weren't mentioned since it was assumed you'd use those point costs for the unit instead of the IA ones. For militia armies they are already a heavy support choice so you are good there . Now if you wanted fluff justification then keep reading.
So far the only malcador variant I can't find in any of the black books is the Defender variant, I even began looking at the pictures in all 7 books (I didn't comb through them with a magnifying glass mind you XD) and I couldn't find any hints of a defender there either in the fluff. However there's no reason to not use it, as we have demolisher cannons in the malcador hull already and it's a simple process during the great crusade/ HH era to add the Heavy Bolter ports and modify the upper section for it. If they can design a sicaran they can design a defender basically. You could argue (hypothetically) they are recycled Malcador Valdors- sort of like the thunderer tank is recycled from the destroyer tank? During the heresy high tech vehicles might not be able to be repaired as readily as they did during the crusade. Or it's just a vehicle that hasn't been mentioned in the book, it's a large place and the black books only cover so much and I doubt the book will cover every single vehicle model that was used in-universe. Basically I would use the IA without worrying about it since it is allowed and not that much of a departure from the fluff.
The macharius/Crassus is another interesting vehicle since they aren't in the book. Do we really know when they entered service? I know the plans were (re)discovered on Zhao Arkkad and if I know the fluff well enough the Praetor Armoured Assault launcher is said to be the oldest pattern (rather it is confirmed to exist before the Crassus was reintroduced though they could be the same age for all we know), so we know the basic hull could be around, same with the gorgon transport proving that the track units were around during the heresy. Basically I justify all my Crassus/Macharius variants for my DG as having recently resupplied at Zhao Arkkad, which is actually fitting since they were mentioned as one of the major legions resupplied by them after the Heresy started. Now the name wouldn't be Crassus obviously nor macharius... Does FW answer fluff questions? It would be interesting to know haha. Given the state of Zhao Arkkad after being reclaimed during the great scouring maybe they didn't resume production of their tank types for a long time? That would in theory then allow both statements to be true, it was around but was so forgotten by the time it was put back into production it was considered "new"? For that matter book 7 says it was lost during the heresy and reclaimed during the scouring, so we can assume it was lost again for it to be reconquered by Lord Solar Macharius, so maybe production continued after the heresy and would explain how the Preator was in use around the 35th millennium before being lost. There are no records of it by the 41st millennium but then again that is not necessarily surprising either given the decay of the Imperium.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 02:02:35
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
The Militia only have access to the basic Malcador, not the Infernus or Valdor.
As far as I know the macharius was created by a tech priest to be essentially a stop gap between the proliferate leman russ and the more powerful but harder to produce and maintain Baneblade. It's been I while since I thumbed through the Vraks books but I'm pretty sure it was produced post-Heresy. Anyway the red books tell us to just count it as some random local tank variant that probably existed at the time, so not a Macharius, it's a counts as Xerxes class battle-tank
|
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 07:16:23
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Oh derp I guess they don't, I was thinking of the Solar Auxilia .
That's interesting about the Macharius, I don't own Vraks so I'm curious if you get the time to look at it to see if it says anything about any of the Macharius/Crassus variants, as the warhammer wiki implies the Macharius was around during the heresy:
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 17:56:12
Subject: Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
Huh... maybe what I had was old canon then?
|
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 18:00:28
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
|
Seems like a bit of both.acknowledges Forge worlds trying to find superheavy designs that aren't baneblades, and talked about the adept finding fragments of the macharius. Seems like he basically did what Jurassic park did and filled in the missing data with components from other STC tanks like the Baneblade. So the original macharius was a Horus Heresy or before design, but the one we have now is an amalgamation of Macharius design fragments and other design components making up the missing parts.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 18:01:32
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 19:14:51
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
That would make sense, finding a blueprint here and one there and then melding them together. Now it makes me wonder what the original design/s looked like for the Macharius, and how STC data is stored and displayed for that matter, because it could be as "simple" as a turret/gun and engine swap they were looking for or something far more complex.
|
|
|
|
2017/09/12 20:41:57
Subject: Re:Alternate Lords of War for Age of Darkness Force Org Chart (Malcadors?)
|
|
Steady Dwarf Warrior
The last Squat stronghold
|
Well, it is possible that Macharius was used during the Great Crusade but wasn't know by the same name then because the chassis being rediscovered and named after Lord Commander Macharius and so the connection cannot be drawn between the two because of the base differences since the 40k one was referenced to baneblade while it could have been different during HH.
|
|
|
|
|