Okay so we've know for a while that the Epic Bombard doesn't really match what a Bombard is in the main Warhammer 40,000 background / rules.

In Warhammer 40,000, it has the same range as a basilisk, plus more powerful attacks.

Currently the stats on the Bombard's gun are:


More appropriate stats would be something like:



So, if, theoretically, some lists were to start using this more accurate-to-the-background-and-warhammer-40,000-rules range, what would be a good points cost?

And is it desirable at all for more recent lists to start using more accurate Bombard stats? (I know what those on each polar end of the debate will say, but I'd like to hear from those without entrenched positions).

Changing the range stat could be gotten around by renaming the weapon ('Bombard Mortar') or Pattern of the vehicle ('Phaeton Pattern Bombard'), noting that this type of Bombard is built on a Leman Russ chassis (like the 2nd ed. Bombard) instead of the Chimera chassis, etc.

I'd propose only using these upgraded stats in more latterly-developed army lists, in order to avoid having to check balance in every single Epic IG list developed.

Due to the hefty stat increase, I expect that this Bombard would be more expensive in points cost than Basilisks or Manticores, maybe 300pts per formation of 3, instead of 250pts.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

For a long time I have argued that the ranges of the Basilisk and Manticore were excessive. Even if they fail to activate, they can still shoot someting in the opposing deployment zones 'over open sights'.

I would suggest they should be reduced to :-

Basilisk = 75cm (or possibly 90cm) indirect
Manticore = 90cm (or possibly 120cm) indirect

Even with reduced ranges, these would still be the longest artillery in the game. Then by all means amend the Bombard's range to suite (perhaps 60cm-75cm?). But I would suggest we still keep it slightly shorter ranged than the Basilisk; it is a siege howitzter rather than a long-range cannon afterall.

As to costs, using a range that is more in keeping with all other E:A artillery suggests the costs could then be aligned with the existing I:G costs. Effectively this would give you the choice of more hitting power at a slightly reduced range for the same price.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

A longer range for the Bombard seems obvious IMO. But I dont think it should match the range of an Earthshaker Cannon. The shell is really much bigger. So 90cm would be fine, but anything between 60 and 90cm would suit me.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

A W40k Bombard has exactly the same range as a Basilisk in the W40k rules and the background talks about the Bombards being situated even further back than the Basilisks in the Krieg's long range artillery lines. The shell is bigger true, but that is a very massive gun with lots of propellant and FWs intention for it to be an extremely long ranged artillery weapon is clear.

I'm keen to have the Bombards represented in the Krieg and Vraks lists as they are there in W40k. The Bombard there can be a different 'pattern' to the one in the core list - it is based on a Leman Russ chassis and considerably different looking to the core rulebook model Bombard which is a Chimera chassis based vehicle.

Compared to the core rulebook IG list the Krieg list already has it's own different profile for Infantry, Rough Riders, Marauder Bombers, Shadowswords, Baneblades, etc. Only 6 units are shared between the lists and there are 27 new or altered units, so people using the list would be having to familiarise themselves these anyway. Considering that is it really that much more of a stretch to have a properly ranged Bombard in the Krieg and Vraks list, who are lists very much about their artillery?

One aspect is that it would be good to have a proper set of rules stated, tested and balanced in at least some lists, as then people could unofficially use them in any other list using them with the current stats should they choose, knowing that they should be fairly balanced. I'd still use long range stats for these units anyway even if this motion is shot down, but I'd be less comfortable they were balanced.


A Bombard is extremely slow in W40k (max 6" or infantry speed) and really should have 15cm movement and a note saying "May not garrison" in it's unit notes.

I previously suggested making the formation be 3 Bombards and 3 Trojans (a W40k Bombard is as massive a big gun they could fit on a set of tracks, there is no space for ammo internally and each tank comes with a free Trojan in W40k which carries it's ammo). This would make the formation more survivable though, and probably alter things more than it's worth, so I've change my mind on that (I'll likely use Trojans as counters for when the slow firing Bombards are reloading though just as I'll similarly use Sentinel Power-Lifters for Manticores).


I think the artillery ranges are fine and the ranges are very settled as they are and unlikely to be changed across the board. Artillery in open sights can easily be targeted by enemy firing during the game and so most of the time artillery will likely be hidden behind cover anyway I find, in which case they often can't fire if they fail their activation.

If in doubt I like to avoid having unique special rules (especially ones that apply only to a certain Scenario, as this one would).

16cm speed?    (No I'm not particularly serious there)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think a different name to represent the different pattern and new stats is a good idea

Id agree with Flogus that having its range the same as an earthshaker seems odd, but if that's what the background says id support it. Making it 15cm also seems sensible, as it matches the background and its having more range on the gun anyway.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

I'm not sure that these count as relevant but the experimental Squat (Thurgrim) list has the Goliath Mega Cannon and Doomsday Cannons.

The Goliath runs at 125cm, 4BP, Indirect and Ignore Cover but can only fire Indirect
The Doomsday Cannon is 120cm, 3BP, MW.

Really big guns. However assuming some of tanks ranges are accurate (Basilisk etc) then the new Bombard should be fitted in as to roughly where it is in 40k. There is also a logical simplicity in shorter range, bigger bang assuming you don't want to adjust points too much.

Well, I know that the Bombard and the Earthshaker have the same range (in both W40Kv5 and SM/TL), but I feel a mortar (I see the Bombard as a giant mortar) shouldn't be able to fire further than a howitzer.

About its Speed, the Deathstrike Launcher is 'Speed 20cm'. It seems annoying nobody, even if making cross-country with a thousand-tons ballistic missile is ... a little bit unrealistic
So, let's keep untouched the 'Speed 20cm' of the Bombard (and of the Deathstrike Lancher !)

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

The stats i proposed where:

Bombard Heavy Siege Mortar (Gryphonne IV Pattern)*
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 15cm 6+ 6+ 6+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Heavy Siege Mortar** 30-240cm 2BP Ignore Cover, Slow-firing

Notes: The Bombard doesn't need a Line of Sight to shoot his Heavy Siege Mortar.

* Note that the Rulebook Bombard is Triplex Phall pattern. Obviously an inferior design  
** Rulebook weapons name is just "Siege Mortar"

Alternative stats could be:
Bombard Heavy Siege Mortar (Gryphonne IV Pattern)
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Armoured Vehicle 15cm 6+ 6+ 6+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Heavy Siege Mortar 30-240cm 1BP Disrupt, Ignore Cover, Slow-firing

Notes: The Bombard doesn't need a Line of Sight to shoot his Heavy Siege Mortar.

Also in the Notes you could state that the Bombard can't Garrison because it is supposed to stand behind the frontlines.

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

What's wrong with just "Heavy Siege Mortar 120cm 2BP Ignore Cover, Indirect Fire, Slow-firing"?

I cannot see any justification for adding a special rule (and a non-standard format for the unit's range) that so closely apes the benefits of an existing ability.


I don't see why this is necessary. Immobile artillery would normally be installed well behind the front lines as well, but units with a move of 0 are included in the list of things that can garrison.

Garrisons don't necessarily represent scouting formations working their way into forward positions; they can also represent, well, garrisons, which could include long-range artillery. Unless there's a compelling balance reason why allowing 40k-style Bombards to garrison would be a bad idea, I can't see any need to ban it. And to be honest, it doesn't seem that likely anyone would want to garrison them anyway. They've enough range to reach just about anywhere on the board wherever you put them, and they're fragile enough that putting them in a tempting forward position is just asking to have them eliminated. Possibly by counter-artillery barrages that might otherwise be unable to reach them.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

Well, that'd be nonsense-overpowered.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How is it overpowered? You pass the actiontest and it can fire, you fail and in most of the cases (as i assume you place the unit like most other Artillery behind cover) can't shoot at all.
Another idea could be:
Notes: The Bombard doesn't need a Line of Sight to shoot his Heavy Siege Mortar, but has to remain stationary to shoot

And you should know that NO Wh40k weapon doubles it's range if it fires indirect.

The no Garrision i included because it prevents the Bombard formation to start the game in Overwatch.

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

Overwatch. Just like the old Deathstikes with no LOF were Overwatch monsters.


Honestly BL, you're proposing tacking on a bunch of special rules and exceptions, when really all it needs to fall in line with the basilisk is a range increase and probably a consequential points increase.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well the "exceptions" are there because i don't like the "double range when firing indirect"

Else your stats are finde except the 20cm speed where i would like to see 15cm.

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

Well, that's just how Epic does it. Addding special abilities (and making the unit actually diverge more from the other artillery types) ain't nessesary.


Again, add a special rule preventing the unit from Garrisoning in the Tournament scenario, or keep the 20cm speed and keep things simple?

Yeah, the latter.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter