Why such a difference between Hunter/Raider? Both are Vampire hulls.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

The Vampire Raider is a transport while the Hunter is a gunship. The hulls are the same, DC2, RA5+. The Raider has transport space while the Hunter does not: it mounts bigger weapons instead.

What else are you asking about, blackhorizon?

Planetfall specifically states that any aircraft that enters play by planetfall lands.



The fact that planetfalling units must land seems to be implied here, and thus the VR cannot planetfall, as it cannot land.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Well, that a Dragonship should be able to carry both and both should be able to do planetfall or both shouldn't.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

I fail to see why it would have to be "both should or shouldn't", the aircraft are used for radically different purposes.

It's a game mechanics issue; it's not that they can't "fly down" from a Dragonship in "the real world", it's that there is no game mechanical reason for the Vampire Hunter to do so, in fact, planetfalling would be a detriment to the Hunter as it wouldn't be able to do anything the turn it arrives as: without transport, it's incapable of landing so it never becomes a "ground unit" that can take normal orders like planetfalling transport craft and since it's already on the board, it can't be "setup on a table edge" as required by aircraft orders it can't perform any of them either.

The Hunter coming in for a ground attack could certainly be thought of as occuring after flying down from a Dragonship, but using the actual planetfall rules does nothing for the unit.

A scenario could certainly have something come up with landing Vampire Hunters and such, but, in normal play, there is absolutely no reason to planetfall them.

The Dragonship has any type of Vampire as transportable just for completeness.

thanks Chroma, I appreciate that

Perhaps from a gaming viewpoint a given but I like things more background driven. That's why I am inquiring.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Just noticed that the "Court of the young King" seems to have disappeared. Perhaps this was dropped from the Avatar stat line with the intention of replacing it as a separate character, which was then forgotten?

Anyhow it is still referenced in the Biel Tan list, but apparently not elsewhere?

Just noticed that the "Court of the young King" seems to have disappeared. Perhaps this was dropped from the Avatar stat line with the intention of replacing it as a separate character, which was then forgotten?

Anyhow it is still referenced in the Biel Tan list, but apparently not elsewhere?

The court of the young king is specifically Biel Tan.

It should be in the characters section of the army document, it appears to be so in my current draft, so, good eye and, no, it's not been forgotten!

I just noticed the clarification note on the Cobra saying that the D-cannon only ignored cover vs. war engines, yet all TK weapons ignore cover. Why the inconsistency and considering the nature of the D-cannon, cowering monkeighs would not get a cover save anyway.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

TK weapons don't actually "ignore cover", they just don't allow a save, any save, other than invulnerable save. Cover *does* grant the "-1 to hit" for targets of TK weapons, and that's what this note is referring to.

So a Warhound in the woods would be hit at the same value as one out in the open... *slurp*