Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Thunderhawk Transporters
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
Firstly: can the regular Thunderhawk not take extra missiles under the IA rules? Either way, I strongly suggest they not be given missiles. They're a transport unit - they'd be better than a T-Hawk in my opinion if they had missiles.

Secondly: my point about the transport rules was that it would be really, really good if we can avoid making an exception to one of the core rules in the rulebook. If we can't, then an exception is warrented, but lets see what we can do.

It didn't occur to me that someone might try to load a Transporter without vehicles, but it's a good point.

How about:

Transport: 2 from the following list: rhino, razorback, predator, vindicator, whirlwind; OR 1 from the following list: Land Raider or Land Raider Crusader; PLUS any units transported.

Uh, the last bit is weak. I wanted to write "PLUS any units capable of being transported by a transport unit being transported" (by the Transporter!) but really, that's about as clear as mud.

But you get my point? That essentially gives the rule that you can only transport infanry inside vehicles BUT doesn't break the rule about russian doll tactics.

Lord =I=
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I think my last posted interpretation was a little clearer to be honest Lord Inquisitor, and achieved the same end. The key is to vary word usage to prevent the reader's brain freezing up due to repetition-hypnosis. :)


To be honest I can't see an elegant way to describe the Transporter's unique carriage method other than to set aside a short paragraph beneath the Notes. Otherwise the Notes just end up as a big damn block of text.


Firstly: can the regular Thunderhawk not take extra missiles under the IA rules? Either way, I strongly suggest they not be given missiles. They're a transport unit - they'd be better than a T-Hawk in my opinion if they had missiles.


I just had a check and yes, Gunships can also take Hellstrikes... so they should probably come off of the Transporter too, since they're described as being only occasionally used anyway.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
Yes, I was in the 101('79-'83), 2ID ('84-'86), and 197th Mech Bde ('86-'90) ... but it was NOT online !  It was in Central America, The ROK, W.Ger, and the desert ! :;):  I see =][='s point about the R/Doll Rule ... So the easiest, based on the fluff & current rules ... is THT can transport the AFV & Inf mounted inside ...   And I'd say, Hellstrikes on the T/Hawk, but not on the THT ... IMO.  The T/hawk is more like a USSR  Hind-D, a gunship that can carry troops and pack a lot of firepower ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11150
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(Legion 4 @ Sep. 27 2006,16:39)
QUOTE
The T/hawk is more like a USSR ?Hind-D, a gunship that can carry troops and pack a lot of firepower ...

Good analogy.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
And No, currently it takes a C5A to carry 1 M1 MBT ( a C-130 can carry an M113, and the Stryker was designed for the C-17) ... but in the far future ... who knows ? ?:D  A gunship/dropship might be able to carry an MBT 100s of years from now !?          And Thanks, D/S ... the USSR's Mi-8 can carry rocket pods & AT Missles + carry 28 troops, too ...




_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Thunderhawk Gunship == Supersized Hind-D.
Thunderhawk Transport == C5A.
Thunderhawk Lander == Flying LST? :D



Anyways, based on these stats:


One or Two Thunderhawk Transporters - 150 points each.


Type    Speed  Armour CC  FF
Bomber   na        4+    6+  5+

Weapon                              Range    Firepower   Notes
2x twinlinked heavy bolter  15cm     AP4+/AA5+  Left Arc
2x twinlinked heavy bolter  15cm     AP4+/AA5+  Right Arc

DC2 (critical=dead), planetfall, reinforced armour. Transport: 2 from the following list: rhino, razorback, predator, vindicator, whirlwind; OR 1 from the following list: Land Raider or Land Raider Crusader; PLUS any units transported.



Is 150 points appropriate, or is 125 better?

Oh and Land Raider Helios should be in there. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
Works for me ! :D

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
I like it, and I think that 125 sounds right.

CAL
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
Well E&C, you got 2 "thumbs up" !  One from a former Grunt and an on duty Tanker !  :D  That's a pretty good vote of confidence !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
E&C - that looks almost there. I like that version better than the one before - there's less implication that the troops transported are (in rules terms) doing a Russian Doll.

Still, "plus any units transported" is kind of vague, and not necessarily obvious. "Plus any infantry transported"? "Plus any infantry transported in the vehicles"? (That should be the same, assume Dreads don't get a LR transport option.)

Lastly, there's one other main rule that is broken by the Transporter formation: splitting the formation across several War Machine Transports. This is why I'm so keen to avoid breaking the Russian Doll rule too.

SO:

CODE
Thunderhawk transporter

Type ? ?Speed ?Armour CC ?FF
Bomber ? na ? ? ? ?4+ ? ?6+ ?5+

Weapon ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Range ? ?Firepower ? Notes
2 twinlinked heavy bolter ?15cm ? ?AP4+/AA5+ ?Left Arc
2 twinlinked heavy bolter ?15cm ? ?AP4+/AA5+ ?Right Arc

Notes
DC2 (critical=dead), Planetfall, Reinforced armour. Transport: 2 from the following list: rhino, razorback, predator, vindicator, whirlwind; OR 1 from the following list: Land Raider or Land Raider Crusader; PLUS ?any infantry transported in the vehicles

Thunderhawk Transporters sometimes operate in squadrons. If more than one Thunderhawk Transporter is present in a squadron, transported units from a single formation may be spread between Thunderhawk Transporters (this is an exception to the rules in section 3.1.3).


I would NOT drop the points below 150. Do not forget the advantage of dropping formations with their transports. Also note that a squadron of 2 is 300 points and is extremely similar to a Landing Craft in most ways (DC4, similar weapon loadout, similar numbers of units transported, etc), and that costs 350. I think LC are worth the 50 points more (it is Fearless), but they are very much an all-your-eggs situation. 250 for two is just too cheap - I'd rather have 2 transporters than 1 regular T-hawk for a mere 50 points more even before taking transported units into account!

Besides, again, much better to err on the side of making new units too expensive. If in playtesting they're not as effective, then we can drop it. But I think that 175 might be a better starting points value, and 150 is an absolute minimum.

I think we can leave Land Raider Helios out for brevity since it is unlikely to make it into the rulebook...

Lord =I=
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
So =][=, how would you handle it, keeping it with all current rules ?  I'm just playing Devil's (Horus's) Advocate ! I'm all for limiting exceptions ...  Many of G/W's rule systems are that way - to sell more models !   And being in business myself, I understand that !  :D

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Fair enough 150 could be a good starting point.

Lacking the flexibility of the Thunderhawk Gunship I think they might do with being 125 points later on, but I'll start playtesting this sunday at 150 anyways.

I think we can leave Land Raider Helios out for brevity since it is unlikely to make it into the rulebook


But Heliosi are cooool. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
Legion 4, not quite sure I understand the question: I think the last set of rules I posted are okay. I don't think we can get around the stipulation that formations can be spread across transporters, otherwise the only formation you can transport would be devastators or scouts in 2 rhinos.

I'll check tonight, but is everyone sure whirlwinds can be Transported? Just wondering how they would fit...

E&C: I seriously would take 2 transporters for 250 points over a regular T-hawk every time. All you're losing is the battlecannon and a little infantry space for two DC2 flying warmachines capable of carrying vehicles! Essentially a poor man's Landing Craft for ?100 points less. Put another way: for 50 points more, you lose 1 battlecannon, gain 4 heavy bolters and 2DC plus (in addition to the T-hawk infantry capacity) four rhinos too - which I might add, are free ... effectively you have to sacrifice 40 points worth of vehicles to put 8 infantry into a T-hawk, which you don't have to if it is a Transporter.

You know what? I think they should be 175 each. It hadn't occured to me before now that the Transporter essentially gives you free units. Price them at 175 for your playtest games and see how they do. We can always drop the price later, and that's a much better feeling than increasing it.

Heliosi (that's never a word...) are certainly cool enough... clearly they can be transported by Transporters, but if they're not in the list it really doesn't make all that much difference...

Lord =I=
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36994
Location: Ohio - USA
Understand ... =][=, I misunderstood ... I see now !  After rereading your post ... That looks good ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporters
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
I cant see how you think 175 is valid or balanced. A Thunderhawk (TH) cost 200 points and is a 2DC WE with  five attacks(1 AT/AP, 4 x AP/AA) and can carry 8 infantry. At 175 points your Thunderhawk Transport (THT) is a 2DC WE with four attacks AP/AA only and can carry two vehicles of Rhino class or one Land Raider. So at best it can carry four infantry. So it can carry the vehicles that are given away by the use of the TH, it has no AT fire and a ranged attack equivilant of small arms. I now bye two to take a Tactical formation so it cost me 350 points, why dont I bye a Landing Craft? So lets look at that, 4DC WE with six attacks (2 x AT, 4 x AP) and it can carry six/four vehicles as opposed to four/two and twelve/six infantry stands as opposed to eight/four. 175 is a waste, as a single vehicle it can carry a Devastator or Scout formation with no upgrades. As a pair it can carry a Tactical, Devastator or Scout formation with upgrades. You would have people pay for a formation that cost the same as a LC and has half the abilities. This is another case of a Marine unit being overcosted from the outset and thus makes it an unpopular choice for marine players. The vehicle has limited abilities when taken as a single and should be costed as such. 125 - 150 to start and see what playtesting results produce.

CAL
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net