Not a fan of the solution above then?

(To re-cap making AA its own formation and having a price point of 150 for lights, 175 for earthshakers - ack ack/light/heavy, tada! For 150 if it were 3 guns I'd have 3 (AP3+)quads/2-3 crew and for 4 guns 4 (AP2x5+) quads and no crew/1 crew.



Traditionally infantry guns were given out in support roles, companies were larger tubes.


Yeah so 6+ Chimera, 5+ Leman Russ


And you should borrow the horrible 2nd ed fighters and bombers for the poor mossinios

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Huh?

The Leman Russ has a much better profile than the Bombard.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

1. Space Marines have the Whirlwind Hyperios as dedicated AA unit.

2. The FW Bombard is sloooow. It is even slower than Infantry so could give it a Speed of 10cm. Yes it could garrison with this but would you like having a vulnerale piece of artillery in such a forward position which already has a range which can reach across the whole board?

3. the FW Bombards chassis LOOKS as if it is the same as the Leman Russ but its armour values are far worse. Its armour values are the same as the Chimera (12/10/10) which gives it an 5+ save but the Bombard is open-topped (and can't purchase an enclosed cabine) so i put its save at 6+.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I was referring to the Bombard versions of each chassis (as indeed the casual observer will note after flicking through the siege book).


If it were an Epic bombard yes. But I see you have given this one the same range as an Earthshaker (240cm). I think there is something to be said for the shorter ranged model

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Oh lol.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If it were an Epic bombard yes. But I see you have given this one the same range as an Earthshaker (240cm). I think there is something to be said for the shorter ranged model

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Ah now i got it too

Well as i said the Wh40k Bombard has the same armour values as the Chimera plus it is iopen-topped (so it is more vulnerable). So a better save than 6+ is not justified.

As for the shorter ranged (45cm) official rulebook Bombard: Its range is just wrong  

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

If wanted the idea of Infantry to represent additional crew members could be aplied to the Earthshaker and Medusa Platform too. Both have a regular crew of 4 but can have up to 3 additional crew members.

And interesting is that the Medusa Platform in Vraks 1 don't have access to Siege Shells. So it is "only" a 36" Demolisher Cannon (a Demolisher Cannon has 24" range in Wh40k) with the option to purchase the indirect fire ability which increases the range to 24-120" (24" is the minimum range if fired indirect).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

We don't need to care about crew member counts when we include infantry in artillery formations. Take a typical WWII artillery battalion. There's roughly 12 guns and roughly 500 men in there. That's 40 men per gun, even though each gun only has a crew of only roughly 10 men directly serving it. As far as arty organization went, it's roughly like this:

Gun - little "tail". Crew consists of people who shoot the gun.
Section - some "tail". An officer and a few men.
Battery - some more "tail". Observers, signalmen, math geeks, staff sergeants. At this level, roughly half the people still crew the guns.

Battalion - lots of "tail". Officers, signals, logistics people, logistics crews, logistics everything. At this level, the "tail" clearly outweighs the gun crews.

In Epic, we generally ignore all the "tail" or at least we abstract it away. We can choose to use the battery or section level people to model our section-sized formations if we want to. Modelling them as infantry stands is all right.

Alternatively, we can just say that forward arty positions get watched over by the grateful local infantry, and sprinkle with anecdotes about less friendly fire when in LOS of men with bayonets

I agree with asaura; the "extra" infantry units are necessarily "weapon crews", but loaders, security details, etc.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Whatever   . Fact is: There IS a fluff justification if you add Infantry units to Artillery units.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I think the Bombard from the epic rulebook must either be an imposter or a really, really bad build / pattern of a true Bombard.

Going by the current background from the last 4 FW books the Bombard should be extremely long ranged, they're normally situated even further back than the Basilisks in the Krieg artillery lines and it would be nice to have the option to field proper Bombards here in the list most suited to artillery. Sure a very long ranged Bombard is good but just price a formation of them plus 3 trojans (to suit the background of the Bombards carrying their ammo externally in nearby Trojans, plus it stops them garrisoning) at 300-350pts or so.

You really should, they're the best thing GW has ever done by a country mile. Best background, realism, feel of a truly vast conflict, true to life looking battle photos, etc.  

Next thing I want to bring up; any possibility of allowing Krieg players the option to field their tanks without sponsons like they do in the Vraks books E&C? It'd be nice to have the choice. Though I initially disliked the FW no-sponsons theme I'm coming round it and thinking of doing all my Krieg properly, without sponsons.

Perhaps you could have an option to field a tank without sponsons for 5-10pts cheaper? Or possibly 10-15 for a Demolisher with it's normally better sponsons?

IIRC TRC's favourite thing to do with sponson-less tanks is give them +5cm speed and keep them at the same cost.

Seems ok for friendly games to me ; I won't be changing the sponson layout of the tanks here, for model-availability reasons.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What about all those people with FW Vanquishers that don't have them then? Or FW Executioners / Conquerors they'd like to use as Leman Russes here?

I'm not much of a fan of the +5 movement idea and it would seem simpler and more WYSIWYG just to drop points slightly. Extra movement for say a Demolisher doesn't fit with the sponsonless Thunderers moving 20cm.

I'm really quite surprised that an option for sponson or sponsonless tanks wasn't included for all Net-EA Guard lists years ago tbh.

I don't see a problem with house ruling a points drop, and may even include a 'house rules recommendation' somewhere, or similar, but I won't be adding too many options to the tanks in this infantry-focused army list.

And of course, the only place to get sponsonless Battlecannon versions will be to scratchbuild them, something I am not entirely comfortable with.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter