Switch Theme:

Heavy grenade launcher as a turret weapon for a light vehicle.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I was kinda hoping guard might get a heavy grenade launcher as a turret weapon for a light vehicle

Something like
36” range
Krak heavy1 S7 AP-2 3D
Airburst hvyD3+1 S4 AP-1 2D ignore cover blast

Can fire ignoring LoS at a range of 12-24”

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/10/27 19:51:00


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





johnpjones1775 wrote:
I was kinda hoping guard might get a heavy grenade launcher as a turret weapon for a light vehicle

Something like
36” range
Krak heavy1 S7 AP-2 3D
Airburst hvyD3+1 S4 AP-1 2D ignore cover blast

Can fire ignoring LoS at a range of 12-24”


No, too early. Christmas is in December.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Hmm. Maybe? Which guard vehicles would you stick a turret like that on? The hell hound variants are more of a short-ranged unit, and the russ and artillery options already have nastier guns. Maybe it could go on chimeras?

I wonder if normal grenade launcher sponsons would be reasonable...


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. Maybe? Which guard vehicles would you stick a turret like that on? The hell hound variants are more of a short-ranged unit, and the russ and artillery options already have nastier guns. Maybe it could go on chimeras?

I wonder if normal grenade launcher sponsons would be reasonable...
either a whole new chassis, or a taurox chassis.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Do guard really need another tank chassis? Wouldn't that just compete against existing tanks for the same niches? And isn't the taurox battlecannon similar enough in shape to the proposed grenade launcher statline that it would compete for a niche as well?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Wyldhunt wrote:
Do guard really need another tank chassis? Wouldn't that just compete against existing tanks for the same niches? And isn't the taurox battlecannon similar enough in shape to the proposed grenade launcher statline that it would compete for a niche as well?

Who cares if there’s competition for a niche? That’s kind of the guard thing. Punisher and exterminator compete for the same niche, pretty sure like 3 Russ variants compete for the same niches.

Taurox battle cannon doesn’t really fill the same niche. It has no ignore cover rule, nor does it have an indirect fire rule, the last allows for a very different level of tactical flexibility. Not to mention the TBC is only really available to scions, so there’s definitely an uncontested niche for regular guard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/28 01:58:24


 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





 Wyldhunt wrote:
Do guard really need another tank chassis? Wouldn't that just compete against existing tanks for the same niches? And isn't the taurox battlecannon similar enough in shape to the proposed grenade launcher statline that it would compete for a niche as well?

We still have a couple of niches left - armoured car (Tauros is Legends and OOP anyways, though it does already have the twin grenade launcher option), light tank (Sentinel plus an extra weapon and treads, M12"+ - Salamander with extra weapon options would work amazingly, but again, Legends and OOP), and arguably a proper medium/maneuver tank (M12" with a long range main weapon systems, mostly - technically we have the Carnodon, but that's so expensive and IIRC they only ever had the .pdf for rules, so I struggle to count it).
Also, Tauroxen are Dedicated Transports and thus come with the transport tax (and those shonky rules about who you can actually let on board, so you can't even bring the thing and just handwave the transport tax as "Eh, it might pull an Infantry Squad out of trouble every couple of games or something"). I'm aware that this is kind of a me-thing, but I just can't think of the Taurox as something you take for weapons - you buy it for the transport capacity, and the weapons are just a nice extra.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





johnpjones1775 wrote:
 Wyldhunt wrote:
Do guard really need another tank chassis? Wouldn't that just compete against existing tanks for the same niches? And isn't the taurox battlecannon similar enough in shape to the proposed grenade launcher statline that it would compete for a niche as well?

Who cares if there’s competition for a niche?

Well, in theory the issue is that having too much overlap between units leads to some units just being the "bad choice." So like, marines have assault marines, reivers, vanguard vets, terminators, and potentially chapter-specific options like sanguinary guard that all compete for the niche of, "Deepstriking melee unit." And as a result, some of those units tend to be seen as inferior options at any given time based on the meta. So if reivers were your only deepstriking melee unit, they might be considered fine. But next to all the competition, you can't help but feel like you're pulling your punches when you field them instead of the flavor of the month. At times, howling banshees and striking scorpions have rendered one another "the weak choice" in editions where their roles had too much overlap.

That said, I'm always in favor of homebrewing up things just because you and your opponents think they're cool. If you want a grenade turret tank, go have a blast (ba-dum-tish!) with your grenade turret tank.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Placing a krak grenade from a moving vehicle onto a target would be very hard.

You have autocannon/heavy bolter/multilaser options, so the one that isn't there is the frag/smoke launcher. Frag missile stats to account for putting more rounds down, or a smoke screen option which would be smoke launcher effect for the target unit (so could obscure itself, a squad, another vehicle, etc.).
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The_Real_Chris wrote:
Placing a krak grenade from a moving vehicle onto a target would be very hard.

You have autocannon/heavy bolter/multilaser options, so the one that isn't there is the frag/smoke launcher. Frag missile stats to account for putting more rounds down, or a smoke screen option which would be smoke launcher effect for the target unit (so could obscure itself, a squad, another vehicle, etc.).
no harder than putting a battle cannon round on target from a moving vehicle, or putting a las bolt on a target.

That really isn’t an argument especially with gyrostabilized turrets being a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Wyldhunt wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
 Wyldhunt wrote:
Do guard really need another tank chassis? Wouldn't that just compete against existing tanks for the same niches? And isn't the taurox battlecannon similar enough in shape to the proposed grenade launcher statline that it would compete for a niche as well?

Who cares if there’s competition for a niche?

Well, in theory the issue is that having too much overlap between units leads to some units just being the "bad choice." So like, marines have assault marines, reivers, vanguard vets, terminators, and potentially chapter-specific options like sanguinary guard that all compete for the niche of, "Deepstriking melee unit." And as a result, some of those units tend to be seen as inferior options at any given time based on the meta. So if reivers were your only deepstriking melee unit, they might be considered fine. But next to all the competition, you can't help but feel like you're pulling your punches when you field them instead of the flavor of the month. At times, howling banshees and striking scorpions have rendered one another "the weak choice" in editions where their roles had too much overlap.

That said, I'm always in favor of homebrewing up things just because you and your opponents think they're cool. If you want a grenade turret tank, go have a blast (ba-dum-tish!) with your grenade turret tank.


That sounds more like an issue with poor rules writing skills, and the rules team not being able to balance rules out.
Balance is a problem all throughout the game. Balance between factions is trash, balance within factions is trash.
There’s no reason competition for the same niche can’t include all good options. Sure one or two might be slightly better, but a well balanced codex will have all the options being competitive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/28 14:29:15


 
   
Made in hu
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





Heavy Grenade Launchers were a thing back in the days, exclusive to Tauros Assault Vehicles. They were 36" Range Heavy 2 Grenade Launchers and that was all, no stat changes otherwise. Kinda like how the M-32 (Grenade Launcher) compares to the MK-19 (Heavy Grenade Launcher) - both fire the 40mm grenade, the latter just does it faster and further.

Anyway, a Heavy Grenade Launcher pintle weapon option would be fire. Slap it on Chimeras, Leman Russes, even on a Basilisk, it would look cool either way. Finally unlock the other pintle weapon options (Heavy Bolter, Heavy Flamer, Multi-Melta) too if we are at it. Oh, and hull Multi-Melta option for everyone. And Lascannon sponsons for Leman Russes. Now we are talking!

My armies:
14000 points 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

johnpjones1775 wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Placing a krak grenade from a moving vehicle onto a target would be very hard.

You have autocannon/heavy bolter/multilaser options, so the one that isn't there is the frag/smoke launcher. Frag missile stats to account for putting more rounds down, or a smoke screen option which would be smoke launcher effect for the target unit (so could obscure itself, a squad, another vehicle, etc.).
no harder than putting a battle cannon round on target from a moving vehicle, or putting a las bolt on a target.

That really isn’t an argument especially with gyrostabilized turrets being a thing.


I make the assumption here grenades do not fly like bullets, shells or rockets, and in fact fly like grenades do from modern automatic grenade firing crew serves weapons. For something that is not area effect and has to contact its target, yes it would be harder.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The_Real_Chris wrote:
johnpjones1775 wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Placing a krak grenade from a moving vehicle onto a target would be very hard.

You have autocannon/heavy bolter/multilaser options, so the one that isn't there is the frag/smoke launcher. Frag missile stats to account for putting more rounds down, or a smoke screen option which would be smoke launcher effect for the target unit (so could obscure itself, a squad, another vehicle, etc.).
no harder than putting a battle cannon round on target from a moving vehicle, or putting a las bolt on a target.

That really isn’t an argument especially with gyrostabilized turrets being a thing.


I make the assumption here grenades do not fly like bullets, shells or rockets, and in fact fly like grenades do from modern automatic grenade firing crew serves weapons. For something that is not area effect and has to contact its target, yes it would be harder.
and yet real life, people fire grenades from moving unstablized vehicles…not really seeing your point, because again…stabilization exists in 40k
   
Made in pl
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




I mean why not just give it the same profile as the normal grenade launcher but with a dramatically higher fire rate and maybe range extension. The Mk-19/AGS-30 to the normal grenade launchers.

Say like a heavy 3 profile and include it as an upgrade sprue to say a Taurox or a Chimera.

Krak profile Heavy 3 24 inch range, Strength 6, Ap-1 D3 Damage

Frag profile Heavy 2d6, maybe 3d6, 24 inch range, strength 3, Ap-, D1

Cost it appropriately and boom new guard pintle mount. Throw on an optional stratagem that you can load Smoke shells and throw out a 5"x2" stripe of dense cover instead of shooting at an enemy unit.

Fluff for it could be that a group of tech priests had "discovered" an STC fragment for a chaff launcher but didn't properly understand it and saw it was compatible with Frag and Krak Grenades, spent several decades working through the Admech's red tape before getting it approved, and that they've been spreading throughout Segmuntum Tempestous's armies before being picked up by someone higher up in the Imperial Guard for general deployment.

Why haven't we heard about it before? It's relatively new but effectively confined by Red Tape, poorly understood mechanics, a few production issues because it was not originally meant for this role, which saw it further modified and then further Admech Religious debates, before it finally arrives with units, then a few more decades of it being not seeing much usage since nobody important enough to notice was present unit some IM General sees them used in a large grouping against say a (Tyranid-Cultist-Ork) horde, pick one. He then goes on to put in orders for it to replace large numbers of the heavy stubbers in his units.

Back to Crunch, it needs to be noticeably more expensive than a Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter so it doesn't just outright replace both of them, or restricted in what you can put it on if we make it a Pintle weapon, or have be a larger weapon and compete with heavy bolters and multilasers on the Chimera and the twin autocannons on the Taurox. Perhaps that could be a good solution you get it on Taurox APCs as a direct swap for the twin autocannons, its better against light infantry but objectively worse than the twin autocannons against vehicles so its a real choice.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





panzerfront14 wrote:
I mean why not just give it the same profile as the normal grenade launcher but with a dramatically higher fire rate and maybe range extension. The Mk-19/AGS-30 to the normal grenade launchers.

Say like a heavy 3 profile and include it as an upgrade sprue to say a Taurox or a Chimera.

Krak profile Heavy 3 24 inch range, Strength 6, Ap-1 D3 Damage

Frag profile Heavy 2d6, maybe 3d6, 24 inch range, strength 3, Ap-, D1

Cost it appropriately and boom new guard pintle mount. Throw on an optional stratagem that you can load Smoke shells and throw out a 5"x2" stripe of dense cover instead of shooting at an enemy unit.

Fluff for it could be that a group of tech priests had "discovered" an STC fragment for a chaff launcher but didn't properly understand it and saw it was compatible with Frag and Krak Grenades, spent several decades working through the Admech's red tape before getting it approved, and that they've been spreading throughout Segmuntum Tempestous's armies before being picked up by someone higher up in the Imperial Guard for general deployment.

Why haven't we heard about it before? It's relatively new but effectively confined by Red Tape, poorly understood mechanics, a few production issues because it was not originally meant for this role, which saw it further modified and then further Admech Religious debates, before it finally arrives with units, then a few more decades of it being not seeing much usage since nobody important enough to notice was present unit some IM General sees them used in a large grouping against say a (Tyranid-Cultist-Ork) horde, pick one. He then goes on to put in orders for it to replace large numbers of the heavy stubbers in his units.

Back to Crunch, it needs to be noticeably more expensive than a Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter so it doesn't just outright replace both of them, or restricted in what you can put it on if we make it a Pintle weapon, or have be a larger weapon and compete with heavy bolters and multilasers on the Chimera and the twin autocannons on the Taurox. Perhaps that could be a good solution you get it on Taurox APCs as a direct swap for the twin autocannons, its better against light infantry but objectively worse than the twin autocannons against vehicles so its a real choice.

Maybe because the standard Grenade launcher profile is completely trash?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




That's the fault of the "rules writers" not using any special rules with the grenade launcher. They could attempt to give it a pinning effect and make it ignore LoS to fit a lot of the guard theme.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: