[40K]Chemera Sides..again

[paddy]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Nice to see my post started a thread on modelling but I posted regarding the
requirement to hit the side twice. I accept the point about extra armour
being paid for but was thinking along the lines of additional armour ( like
having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring / paying for it
as anything else.

Paddy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

paddy wrote:
> I posted regarding the
> requirement to hit the side twice.

And we told you that it should count as Extra Armour. That's what it
is, after all.

> I accept the point about extra armour

Good.

> was thinking along the lines of additional armour ( like
> having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring
> / paying for it as anything else.

At this point, you need the Vehicle Design Rules.

Nevertheless, it's a non-starter, as a Chimera is too small of a hull to
have Structure Points (vehicle "wounds"). If your Chimera were
something at least twice as big as it currently is, you could claim it
to have a 2nd Structure Point (and pay the 100-odd points for it). But
smaller than a Land Raider, and it won't work within the current 40k
rules context.

While you can do whatever you like in your conversions and rules, what
you're suggesting wouldn't pass for kosher, so I'd recommend you just do
the obvious thing and have the extra armour count as Extra Armour.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"paddy" <noone@nonwhere.net> wrote in message
news:d07npq$pa5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Nice to see my post started a thread on modelling but I posted regarding
> the
> requirement to hit the side twice. I accept the point about extra armour
> being paid for but was thinking along the lines of additional armour (
> like
> having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring / paying for
> it
> as anything else.

Multiple wounds on vehicles is reserved for super-heavies only. You could
just say it makes the side armor 11 instead of 10 and figure out the cost
using the vehicle design rules.


--

-smithdoerr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"paddy" <noone@nonwhere.net> wrote in message
news:d07npq$pa5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Nice to see my post started a thread on modelling but I posted regarding
the
> requirement to hit the side twice. I accept the point about extra armour
> being paid for but was thinking along the lines of additional armour (
like
> having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring / paying for
it
> as anything else.
>
> Paddy

There really isn't any precedent for that sort of rule for normal 40k
models. Within the Vehicle Design Rules and the Imperial Armor books, there
are certain vehicles, called Super Heavy Vehicles, that have Structure
Points, much akin to wounds. These models are all larger than a Land Raider
and the rules are almost never used in Tournaments or other "official" play.

Possible house rules for ablative armor include:
-force one re-roll on the damage table a game (similar to venerable
dreadnought) (15 pts)
-downgrade first penetrating hit to glancing (10 pts)
-add +1 AV on the sides (15pts)
-re-roll any immobilized result (10-15pts)

In the end, I guess, I've got to wonder why you want to pour all those
points and rules into a transport for a fragile IG squad? Having "home
brew" rules for creating special characters of your own is fun, but should
be hashed out with the people you plan on playing with. REgardless, if you
really want to include a second structure point, I'd imagine the rule would
be:
Forge-Crafted: Ignore the first Vehicle Destroyed or Immobilized result of
the game. (40pts)

I'm putting the price low since at 12/10/10 with limited fire power and the
lack of really dangerous cargo, there is less impact on the game. I hope
this helps.

Karyth Teel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <d07npq$pa5$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, paddy,
noone@nonwhere.net Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Nice to see my post started a thread on modelling but I posted regarding the
> requirement to hit the side twice. I accept the point about extra armour
> being paid for but was thinking along the lines of additional armour ( like
> having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring / paying for it
> as anything else.

Well, you seem to be missing the idea of the 'KISS' method - more
commonly known as 'keep it simple stupid'. You can add a ton of home
grown rules, but if you want to play 'pick up games', in tournaments,
etc and don't want to have to hash out a bunch of 'house rules' every
time you play - then the general consensus seems to be to use the counts
as 'extra armor' rule as lots and lots of folks are already familiar
with it. As for points cost - look at what it costs on a variety of
vehicles. I do believe that you'll find that the higher the value is
increased (i.e going from 10 to 11 AV vs going from 11 to 12 AV) on
various vehicles the more points the upgrade will cost. As for house
rules - if you want to represent extra 'alblative type' armor you could
go with something along the lines of 'Ignores first glancing or
penetrating hit against that vehicle.' Something like that shouldn't
require a ton of book keeping (a simple chit or marker will do - remove
it from the vehicle when it takes the first hit and ignore the hit) and
shouldn't unduely unbalance game play either. As for points cost,
again look at the cost of 'extra armor' - this type of extra armor is
better in that it could stop an otherwise 'lethal' hit that would bypass
standard 'extra armor' if your opponent rolled a lot of 6's, but it'll
only work once where as the regular 'extra armor' is never diminished by
damage.

Just some ideas to kick around - hope that helps,

Myrmidon


--
All good (color) choices, but they don't carry the impact of the #7
"Over-ripe bananagaunt." Nothing says fear the tyranids like slightly
aged fruit.

-Maka

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> paddy, noone@nonwhere.net Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
>>was thinking along the lines of additional armour ( like
>>having two wounds on a figure).

> I do believe that you'll find that the higher the value is
> increased (i.e going from 10 to 11 AV vs going from 11 to 12 AV) on
> various vehicles the more points the upgrade will cost.

Armoured Company has a Doctrine that sets the points cost of +1AV for
the Sides at 15 pts, no higher than AV13, no higher than Front, no
effect in HtH.

For regular IG, double the points cost to 30, have it take up 2
Doctrines to be "fair".

> 'Ignores first glancing or
> penetrating hit against that vehicle.'

This is a pretty strong ability for Side Skirts, as normally, even a
Glancing Hit has the minimal effect of Crew Shaken (may not shoot next
turn). Worse, it introduces additional bookkeeping of some flavor.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Karyth Teel" <spo2@case.edu> wrote in message
news:d08sfg$njn$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
>
> "paddy" <noone@nonwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:d07npq$pa5$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > Nice to see my post started a thread on modelling but I posted regarding
> the
> > requirement to hit the side twice. I accept the point about extra
armour
> > being paid for but was thinking along the lines of additional armour (
> like
> > having two wounds on a figure). It was as much about scoring / paying
for
> it
> > as anything else.
> >
> > Paddy
>
> There really isn't any precedent for that sort of rule for normal 40k
> models. Within the Vehicle Design Rules and the Imperial Armor books,
there
> are certain vehicles, called Super Heavy Vehicles, that have Structure
> Points, much akin to wounds. These models are all larger than a Land
Raider
> and the rules are almost never used in Tournaments or other "official"
play.
>
> Possible house rules for ablative armor include:
(snip)

Don't ork vehicles have something like ablative armor as an option?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <38q6tsF5oqkh8U1@individual.net>, John Hwang,
JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Myrmidon wrote:

<snippage>
> > 'Ignores first glancing or
> > penetrating hit against that vehicle.'
>
> This is a pretty strong ability for Side Skirts, as normally, even a
> Glancing Hit has the minimal effect of Crew Shaken (may not shoot next
> turn).

Which is why it's a 'one' and only one shot piece of wargear /
vehicle upgrade. Sort of like the HK 'wONdEr' missile. One wonders if
it's worth the points. It certainly doesn't take a tactical genius to
figure out that one can fire one's 'low S' weapon(s) at it first, thus
burning up the 'alblative armor' effect while saving one's 'high S'
weapons to do the real damage. And considering how many other 'wacky'
things are in 40K 4th Ed - realism may be a consideration, but not a
real big one.

> Worse, it introduces additional bookkeeping of some flavor.

And exactly how hard is it to pick up a chit or marker? Is it any
more difficult than say, having to keep track of various multi-wound
model's remaining wounds by using a dice or chit for example? This one
is a no brainer.


Myrmidon

--
I have nothing against Polish or Americans, at least nothing effective.

- Ecke

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

" Donovan Borman" <borscope@charter.net> wrote in message
news:07TVd.27511$oi.11352@fe06.lga...
> Don't ork vehicles have something like ablative armor as an option?

Wouldn't abortive armour be more "fluffy" (although how Orks can be deemed
fluffy is another matter ...).

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following ...

>>>'Ignores first glancing or
>>>penetrating hit against that vehicle.'
>>
>>This is a pretty strong ability for Side Skirts, as normally, even a
>>Glancing Hit has the minimal effect of Crew Shaken (may not shoot next
>>turn).
>
> Which is why it's a 'one' and only one shot piece of wargear /
> vehicle upgrade. Sort of like the HK 'wONdEr' missile. One
> wonders if it's worth the points.

For 5 or 10 points, it is definitely worth the points. Totally ignoring
a hit that actually glances / penetrates is a good thing.

> It certainly doesn't take a tactical genius to figure out that
> one can fire one's 'low S' weapon(s) at it first, thus burning up
> the 'alblative armor' effect while saving one's 'high S' weapons
> to do the real damage.

Low S weapons probably won't Glance or Penetrate when they Hit. If the
AP value is less than the AV, nothing happens.

>>Worse, it introduces additional bookkeeping of some flavor.
>
> And exactly how hard is it to pick up a chit or marker?

Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Karyth Teel wrote:
> "paddy" <noone@nonwhere.net> wrote ...
>>was thinking along the lines of additional armour (like
>>having two wounds on a figure).

> There really isn't any precedent for that sort of rule for normal 40k
> models.

> I'm putting the price low

On the contrary, you should increase it because it's non-standard. This
way, the opponent can't complain if he clearly overpays for an extra
ability.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <38sq39F5qdun8U1@individual.net>, John Hwang,
JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Myrmidon wrote:
> > John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following ...
>
> >>>'Ignores first glancing or
> >>>penetrating hit against that vehicle.'
> >>
> >>This is a pretty strong ability for Side Skirts, as normally, even a
> >>Glancing Hit has the minimal effect of Crew Shaken (may not shoot next
> >>turn).
> >
> > Which is why it's a 'one' and only one shot piece of wargear /
> > vehicle upgrade. Sort of like the HK 'wONdEr' missile. One
> > wonders if it's worth the points.
>
> For 5 or 10 points, it is definitely worth the points. Totally ignoring
> a hit that actually glances / penetrates is a good thing.
>
> > It certainly doesn't take a tactical genius to figure out that
> > one can fire one's 'low S' weapon(s) at it first, thus burning up
> > the 'alblative armor' effect while saving one's 'high S' weapons
> > to do the real damage.
>
> Low S weapons probably won't Glance or Penetrate when they Hit. If the
> AP value is less than the AV, nothing happens.

Well, that's obvious. A resonably intelligent player wouldn't
waste fire on a target that won't be affected by it at all. However,
there are plenty of weapons like an auto-cannon, etc that have a chance
of damaging a chimera, while they're large wasted on say a Land Raider.
A reasonably savy player would simply fire those at the chimera in hopes
of burning off the alblative armor before opening up with the likes of a
las-cannon which has better odds of doing damage from the start.

>
> >>Worse, it introduces additional bookkeeping of some flavor.
> >
> > And exactly how hard is it to pick up a chit or marker?
>
> Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
> is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
> markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you and the folks you routinely game with
mark vehicles that suffer crew stunned, weapons damage, etc? I usually
see dice used - though I've got some markers done up in photo shop that
spell out the exact effect. (That being said - I need to print out some
more, I can't find where I put the baggy with them in it. Doh!)

Myrmidon



--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.

- Eric Noland

# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army

- Roy Cox

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/

****

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...

>>Low S weapons probably won't Glance or Penetrate when they Hit. If the
>>AP value is less than the AV, nothing happens.
>
> Well, that's obvious. A resonably intelligent player wouldn't
> waste fire on a target that won't be affected by it at all. However,
> there are plenty of weapons like an auto-cannon, etc that have a chance
> of damaging a chimera, while they're large wasted on say a Land Raider.

Um, an Autocannon (S7 Heavy 2) is actually a *VERY* good weapon against
the AV10 side of a Chimera, better than the Lascannon (Autocannon nets
0.67 glance/pen, Lascannon nets 0.5 glance/pen), not even accounting
Autocannons costing less than Lascannons...

>>Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
>>is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
>>markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. How do you and the folks you routinely game with
> mark vehicles that suffer crew stunned, weapons damage, etc? I usually
> see dice used

Yes. And dice have been known to be forgotten, or lost or whatever. To
the extent that extra bookkeeping can be avoided, onw should avoid it.


--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <38t2mtF5on9rfU1@individual.net>, John Hwang,
JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
> Myrmidon wrote:
> > John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...
>
> >>Low S weapons probably won't Glance or Penetrate when they Hit. If the
> >>AP value is less than the AV, nothing happens.
> >
> > Well, that's obvious. A resonably intelligent player wouldn't
> > waste fire on a target that won't be affected by it at all. However,
> > there are plenty of weapons like an auto-cannon, etc that have a chance
> > of damaging a chimera, while they're large wasted on say a Land Raider.
>
> Um, an Autocannon (S7 Heavy 2) is actually a *VERY* good weapon against
> the AV10 side of a Chimera, better than the Lascannon (Autocannon nets
> 0.67 glance/pen, Lascannon nets 0.5 glance/pen), not even accounting
> Autocannons costing less than Lascannons...

That's what I'm saying - there are plenty of light weapons - even
an S6 Plasma gun can crack or glance side armor on a Chimera. A savy
opponent will knock off the 'ablative armor' first with a lower S weapon
as even a single glance will use up the 'ablative armor' I described,
and then they'll open up with the higher S stuff. My point is that the
ablative armor has the potential to save a vehicle's existance in a way
that 'extra armor' does not - but the ablative can only do it once.

>
> >>Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
> >>is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
> >>markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite. How do you and the folks you routinely game with
> > mark vehicles that suffer crew stunned, weapons damage, etc? I usually
> > see dice used
>
> Yes. And dice have been known to be forgotten, or lost or whatever. To
> the extent that extra bookkeeping can be avoided, onw should avoid it.

Agreed, but then that's why I like to use the chits with the
lettering like 'Crew Stunned' or 'Weapon Destroy' on them - they look
nothing like dice and are much harder to 'forget' or be inadvertantly
removed for some other dice roll. I'm just suprised GW (with their love
of little pull out sheets and inserts) hasn't put an 'official' set
together in an issue of White Dwarf.

Hmmm, maybe I should knock up a good looking set and put them up
on RGMW.org (once I win the lottery and get Toaster's Nids all painted
{as well as the rest of my own}).

Myrmidon

--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.

- Eric Noland

# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army

- Roy Cox

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/

****

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...

>>Um, an Autocannon (S7 Heavy 2) is actually a *VERY* good weapon against
>>the AV10 side of a Chimera, better than the Lascannon (Autocannon nets
>>0.67 glance/pen, Lascannon nets 0.5 glance/pen), not even accounting
>>Autocannons costing less than Lascannons...
>
> That's what I'm saying - there are plenty of light weapons - even
> an S6 Plasma gun can crack or glance side armor on a Chimera.

Um, a Rapid-Fired Plasma Gun is just as good as an Autocannon -- both
are 2 shots at S7.

> A savy
> opponent will knock off the 'ablative armor' first with a lower S weapon
> as even a single glance will use up the 'ablative armor' I described,
> and then they'll open up with the higher S stuff.

It might be interesting for you to playtest this against a non-IG AC
vehicle-heavy opponent. They pay the 10? 15? points per vehicle and
gain the ablative armour upgrade, and you then test your savvy against
it. I think that you'll find that such ablative armour is worth
considerably more than 10-15 pts, and that savvy counts for fairly little.

> My point is that the
> ablative armor has the potential to save a vehicle's existance in a way
> that 'extra armor' does not - but the ablative can only do it once.

Let's calculate average BS3 S7 shots to destroy a Chimera, from the side:

Base case = 1/2 hit; 1/6 glance @ 1/6 destroy, 1/2 pen @ 1/2 destroy =
1/2 * 10/36 = 5/36 = about 7 shots.

Ablative = +1/2 hit; 2/3 ablate = +1/3 = +3 shots = 10 shots.

Ablative armour makes the vehicle 50% tougher than before, without any
loss of effectiveness such as Shaken / Stunned. This is very comparable
in effect to a Structure Point, for which the minimal effect is Shaken /
Stunned.

>>Yes. And dice have been known to be forgotten, or lost or whatever. To
>>the extent that extra bookkeeping can be avoided, onw should avoid it.
>
> Agreed, but then that's why I like to use the chits with the
> lettering like 'Crew Stunned' or 'Weapon Destroy' on them - they look
> nothing like dice and are much harder to 'forget' or be inadvertantly
> removed for some other dice roll. I'm just suprised GW (with their love
> of little pull out sheets and inserts) hasn't put an 'official' set
> together in an issue of White Dwarf.

I'm surprised GW hasn't cast them in pewter to sell as a set, like the
Blood Bowl trophies.

> Hmmm, maybe I should knock up a good looking set and put them up on
> RGMW.org (once I win the lottery and get Toaster's Nids all painted
> {as well as the rest of my own}).

Far, far down on my queue of things to do, I want to sculpt a set of 40k
Vehicle damage and maybe Fantasy psychology status icons in bas relief,
and then have them cast up en masse. The icons would sit flat on a 20mm
square base.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Estarriol]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Myrmidon" <ImNot@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c930c41ea4dc5d098a4b2@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <38sq39F5qdun8U1@individual.net>, John Hwang,
> JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following in Timo speak...
>> Myrmidon wrote:
>> > John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed out the following ...
>>
>> >>>'Ignores first glancing or
>> >>>penetrating hit against that vehicle.'
>> >>
>> >>This is a pretty strong ability for Side Skirts, as normally, even a
>> >>Glancing Hit has the minimal effect of Crew Shaken (may not shoot next
>> >>turn).
>> >
>> > Which is why it's a 'one' and only one shot piece of wargear /
>> > vehicle upgrade. Sort of like the HK 'wONdEr' missile. One
>> > wonders if it's worth the points.
>>
>> For 5 or 10 points, it is definitely worth the points. Totally ignoring
>> a hit that actually glances / penetrates is a good thing.
>>
>> > It certainly doesn't take a tactical genius to figure out that
>> > one can fire one's 'low S' weapon(s) at it first, thus burning up
>> > the 'alblative armor' effect while saving one's 'high S' weapons
>> > to do the real damage.
>>
>> Low S weapons probably won't Glance or Penetrate when they Hit. If the
>> AP value is less than the AV, nothing happens.
>
> Well, that's obvious. A resonably intelligent player wouldn't
> waste fire on a target that won't be affected by it at all. However,
> there are plenty of weapons like an auto-cannon, etc that have a chance
> of damaging a chimera, while they're large wasted on say a Land Raider.
> A reasonably savy player would simply fire those at the chimera in hopes
> of burning off the alblative armor before opening up with the likes of a
> las-cannon which has better odds of doing damage from the start.
>
>>
>> >>Worse, it introduces additional bookkeeping of some flavor.
>> >
>> > And exactly how hard is it to pick up a chit or marker?
>>
>> Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
>> is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
>> markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. How do you and the folks you routinely game with
> mark vehicles that suffer crew stunned, weapons damage, etc? I usually
> see dice used - though I've got some markers done up in photo shop that
> spell out the exact effect. (That being said - I need to print out some
> more, I can't find where I put the baggy with them in it. Doh!)
>
> Myrmidon

You Sir are far too damned organised, speaking of which, can you do the RGMW
wanted posters in proper wild west style, I'll even sent my pic for one.
Just got the Cardboard citey and the warhammer old west rules.

--
estarriol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <d0cd38$pll$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, estarriol,
estarriol@blueyonder.jeansNtshirt.co.uk Varfed out the following in Timo
speak...

<mucho snippola!>

> >> > And exactly how hard is it to pick up a chit or marker?
> >>
> >> Not very. But it is additional bookkeeping, which goes against KISS and
> >> is a think-switch for Vehicles which generally don't require chits or
> >> markers, thus leaving a bit of room for error, mistake, or cheating.
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite. How do you and the folks you routinely game with
> > mark vehicles that suffer crew stunned, weapons damage, etc? I usually
> > see dice used - though I've got some markers done up in photo shop that
> > spell out the exact effect. (That being said - I need to print out some
> > more, I can't find where I put the baggy with them in it. Doh!)
> >
> > Myrmidon
>
> You Sir are far too damned organised, speaking of which, can you do the RGMW
> wanted posters in proper wild west style, I'll even sent my pic for one.
> Just got the Cardboard citey and the warhammer old west rules.

I don't know about organized, but I do try and be systematic when
I can. It helps when it comes to doing large amounts of terrain or
painting hordes of minis at the same time.
As for the posters - Yeah, I certainly could. I've done a number
of small wanted type posters as part of my 40K posters project and I've
gotten decent at giving them aging and weathering as well. If you want
to drop me a note with the pic - you can send it to expendable(at)
woh.rr.com and I'll take a look. I'm on a high speed connection, so if
you want to send a larger or better resolution picture, that's ok. It
won't take me forever to download it. I do think the file size limit is
something like 15 megs, so don't go totally nuts. If there is any
specific text you want on the poster (like what you're 'wanted' for)
then let me know that as well.

Myrmidon

--
The Cheeseboy is one of these players with less sense than money.
Always has the newest army and plays each of them in the same way...
Badly!

-- Matt Thompson

RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org

Or...

http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm

 

[paddy]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Thanks so much for your input folks. I think, with hidesite, the KISS
concept wins the day.

{ I also did not intend to start a bun fight.}

Really liked the idea of have proper "Crew stunned" markers though.

Thanks Gents

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Myrmidon wrote:
> John Hwang, JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com Varfed ...

>>Let's calculate average BS3 S7 shots to destroy a Chimera, from the side:
>>
>>Base case = 1/2 hit; 1/6 glance @ 1/6 destroy, 1/2 pen @ 1/2 destroy =
>>1/2 * 10/36 = 5/36 = about 7 shots.
>>
>>Ablative = +1/2 hit; 2/3 ablate = +1/3 = +3 shots = 10 shots.
>>
>>Ablative armour makes the vehicle 50% tougher than before, without any
>>loss of effectiveness such as Shaken / Stunned. This is very comparable
>>in effect to a Structure Point, for which the minimal effect is Shaken /
>>Stunned.
>
> Damn the logic man! This is war!

So we ought to start calling you "Bones"?

> Ok, I see what you're saying once you've spelled out the probablities.
> At what points cost would you price this sort of upgrade?

I think it's worth at least 25 pts, so I'd tentatively price it around
50 pts and fine tune after playtesting.

> At this point it's largely academic since I'm not planning on
> doing 'enhanced armor' on my chimeras any time soon

As you might've seen on GenBus, I've modeled WYSIWYG Side Skirts on my
"treat as" Demolishers to more clearly show them as AV13 sides instead
of AV12.

> - though I do admit I liked the results of the conversion on GW's site.

I don't like the specific details of the side skirts (strange profile,
stick out too far, no lower bracing), nor the removal of the lasguns
entirely. The Predator turret is pretty good, but the gun conversion is
ugly and overly long.

I definitely like all of the added stowage, spares, tarp, etc.

The winterized desert paint job was bizarre. If the paint was to be
winterized, the base paint should have been dark camo or green, and the
lack of weathering was bothersome.

>>>Agreed, but then that's why I like to use the chits with the
>>>lettering like 'Crew Stunned' or 'Weapon Destroy' on them - they look
>>>nothing like dice and are much harder to 'forget' or be inadvertantly
>>>removed for some other dice roll. I'm just suprised GW (with their love
>>>of little pull out sheets and inserts) hasn't put an 'official' set
>>>together in an issue of White Dwarf.
>>
>>I'm surprised GW hasn't cast them in pewter to sell as a set, like the
>>Blood Bowl trophies.
>>
>>>Hmmm, maybe I should knock up a good looking set and put them up on
>>>RGMW.org (once I win the lottery and get Toaster's Nids all painted
>>>{as well as the rest of my own}).
>>
>>Far, far down on my queue of things to do, I want to sculpt a set
>>of 40k Vehicle damage and maybe Fantasy psychology status icons in
>>bas relief, and then have them cast up en masse. The icons would
>>sit flat on a 20mm square base.
>
> Actually, that's a really really cool idea.

Thanks.

> Have you thought about contacting Donovan Borman about
> this since he's getting into the casting stuff?

This is so far down the road, with so much other stuff I've got queued
up, I can hardly imagine even getting started.

> I can see where this sort of thing would appeal to him.

I'm sure it'd appeal to *lots* of people. I've thought about it and
it'd almost be worth the trouble of commissioning the sculpts, and then
having a few hundred sets cast up to sell through various retailers.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny