Should the MI use tanks

[127th Angry Angels]

Those Imperial armour books are the ones released with stats for Forgeworld vehicles aren't they?

Yup, droooool

They're still 'legal' mind.

I don't have much FW stuff, as I only play Second Edition 40k Lol!

It's too pricy for me but i do enjoy browsing their website and dreaming. Really nice armour kits and support vehicles.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Wasn't a point, just a question, I thought you were going with that space marine glider in Rogue Trader when you mentioned air support thats all.

LMAO that was a lame idea Lol!

 

[Hiromoon]

So does it get a rules rewrite so it can ignore the effects of beat feet?

I suppose. Do any of the vehicles have access to Beat Feet?

And what does this fast moving tank have in the way of hand to hand abilities?

Squish? Tank hits bug, rolls close combat dice, resolve as normal?

 

[MaxSteiner]

I dunno, Im was thinking what reaction it would take when a tunnel entrance is placed down next to it.
If it can beat feet it gets to retreat and takes no further reactions (Doesn't feel very tank like), and if it can't it sits there and gets attacked by a tanker (Or tries shooting at the tunnel entrance).
If it had a ready action it could use the track special movement ability which would let it move and shoot of course, but would need a ready left over.

I wouldnt really be comfortable with a tank getting hand to hand combat reaction rolls against bugs to its side though. If it wants to charge it should have to use its movement to reach them (So at the very least change its facing).

Can this proposed tank also hover or fly? (It seems like it'd be easier all round to make it a hover tank but then it doesnt fit the piece of rejected concept art).

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

It's too pricy for me but i do enjoy browsing their website and dreaming. Really nice armour kits and support vehicles.

I love this -

Swap the Pilot for a Fleet model, what a great SICON recon vehicle.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

I dunno, Im was thinking what reaction it would take when a tunnel entrance is placed down next to it.
If it can beat feet it gets to retreat and takes no further reactions (Doesn't feel very tank like), and if it can't it sits there and gets attacked by a tanker (Or tries shooting at the tunnel entrance).
If it had a ready action it could use the track special movement ability which would let it move and shoot of course, but would need a ready left over.

I wouldnt really be comfortable with a tank getting hand to hand combat reaction rolls against bugs to its side though. If it wants to charge it should have to use its movement to reach them (So at the very least change its facing).

Can this proposed tank also hover or fly? (It seems like it'd be easier all round to make it a hover tank but then it doesnt fit the piece of rejected concept art).

100% agreement, a Tank shouldn't get a HTH reaction at all. I (personally) would take CHAS units in support of it (stored in Compartments in its sides).

 

[127th Angry Angels]

It's too pricy for me but i do enjoy browsing their website and dreaming. Really nice armour kits and support vehicles.

I love this -

Swap the Pilot for a Fleet model, what a great SICON recon vehicle.

LOL, SICON panda car, nice. There's a flyer on there called the maruader (or similar) that's basically a IG B-17, that would be fun to paint up with nose art.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

LOL, SICON panda car, nice. There's a flyer on there called the maruader (or similar) that's basically a IG B-17, that would be fun to paint up with nose art.

Yea baby Lol, I quite like the Valkirie - but its too 40k'ish' if you kwim.

The SICON Panda, looks more 'generic' as a Sci Fi Vehicle.

 

[Hiromoon]

I dunno, Im was thinking what reaction it would take when a tunnel entrance is placed down next to it.
If it can beat feet it gets to retreat and takes no further reactions (Doesn't feel very tank like), and if it can't it sits there and gets attacked by a tanker (Or tries shooting at the tunnel entrance).
If it had a ready action it could use the track special movement ability which would let it move and shoot of course, but would need a ready left over.

Well, you could argue that because it has multiple crewmembers, the tank can still make reactions as long as they're shoot actions with the turret...

I wouldnt really be comfortable with a tank getting hand to hand combat reaction rolls against bugs to its side though. If it wants to charge it should have to use its movement to reach them (So at the very least change its facing).

That's a valid point. A rule will have to put in there. Origionally I had written it as a Tank Squish special rule, able to run over enemy models up to a certain size.

Can this proposed tank also hover or fly? (It seems like it'd be easier all round to make it a hover tank but then it doesnt fit the piece of rejected concept art).

I donno. I really like that High Mobility Tank... given that the Federation doesn't have what fits the SciFi norm of Hovor technology.

 

[Makoto]

Definitely not - by definition, it's AIRmobile infantry, not mech inf. Tanks would only add tons of logistics problems, not to mention the fact it'd be much easier to add more Marauders (more efficient units, after all) rather than redesign transports.

 

[Hiromoon]

Well, it's debatable that a Marauder is more efficient than a tank.

All Marauder suits have the same serious design flaws. They take 26 hours to take from ‘cold’ storage to ‘warm’ active service. Once ready to take the fi eld, they can only operate for eight hours on their power cells before all their systems go dead and they are rendered immobile. Field engineers assigned to Marauder suits always bring replacement cells when they can, but this can still leave a Marauder driver helpless and immobile in enemy territory.

And just to throw a wrench into the AIRmobile infantry thing, the 82nd Airborne Division of the US Army used light tanks in the first Gulf War (technically the Second Gulf War, with the Iran/Iraq War being the first), and Soviet Union / Russian airbrone forces also having parachute capable tanks...

As for logistics, you got me there. I mean, spare parts not just on ship but available in the field, plus fuel and ammunition. Probably wouldn't be something carried on standard missions.

 

[Ben2]

Airmobile forces have used light tanks since WWII. Hence the Tetrach and the Locust. They were light, fast, and pretty much useless against any existing tank.

However I think APCs/IFVs have a role in LAMI forces or forces operating without fleet or other air support. Any world with highly unstable weather and very high winds, or large amounts of AA, or large cloud cover (particularly of anything inimical to flight surfaces) or huge flocks of birds (BIRDSTRIKE!!!) or that is too low priority to rate a fleet presence, would be an argument for APC/IFVs.

Basically I'm thinking something similar to the APC from aliens. Deployable from a Viking (I think I'm remembering correctly) and able to carry a squad of LAMI (but exosuits won't fit in, and PAMI only at a push) with some anti-infantry/light anti armour/big bug capacity and basically used for tooling around in and fire support.

What would happen to Skinnie etc worlds the MI capture? MI are too valuable to stick on occupation, whereas LAMI would need something to patrol in.

I agree that getting the system resurrected first is a priority, but a very well sculpted LAMI APC would be a next step. The current design (from the MI equipment guide) is horribly ugly though.

So a no to true MBT, but a yes to a utility APC/IFV. Like a Warrior or Bradley, but in the future man.

 

[Poko]

They're still 'legal' mind.

imperial armor? not tournament legal last time i checked(which was a year ago,granted :roll: ). i think every book had the "opponent's consent" blurb, and only the Apocalypse changes the matter since everything goes in that ruleset :wink:

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

They're still 'legal' mind.

imperial armor? not tournament legal last time i checked(which was a year ago,granted :roll: ). i think every book had the "opponent's consent" blurb, and only the Apocalypse changes the matter since everything goes in that ruleset :wink:

If it is in there I can't find it - mind you, I only have Volumes 1 & 2.

 

[Ben2]

Shall we start the argument about 40ks tournament centric outlook choking game development like a mouthy hooker? :roll:

I remember air rules in rogue trader, crude though they may have been. Forgeworld have put some fun and silliness back into the game, and produced some very nice models, though at a very large cost to the wallet. It seems a fair amount of good ideas GW has get hived off to forgeworld because they feel they won't appeal to their target market, or they can't be bothered (producing anything in Epic scale for one).

We should probably get back to talking about tanks. A nifty looking APC/IFV is an idea I can get behind. As long as it doesn't look like the Gecko.

 

[Poko]

well, i won;t find it either,thrown out all the GW books during the home renov :lol: . or maybe it was only the fliers and superheavies(of those i'm sure) that needed it?

 

[gorkamorka]

You tools don't even have a game, and now your peeing on your shoes about TANKS?!?!?! :roll:

WTF

Don't you fanboys think that you need a game before you start crying about added units?

 

[cOwgummi]

don't you think that we have no information about the new game/ can't really ergue about the problems at hand so its alright to discuss other things that come to mind when thinking about the game?

jeez...I'll prefer a not-immediately-relevant discussion between fanboys over just another "please improve the obvious stuff" topic anytime...

 

[Hiromoon]

I think he's jealous because his name-sake fell out of favor with GW years and years ago....

 

[cOwgummi]

I think he's jealous because his name-sake fell out of favor with GW years and years ago....

or maybe he just is an internet-hate-machine 8)