As I dont play 40K, could you explain what effect the inferno cannon has on vehicles. The quote I have found suggest that it ought to have an AT component  The sheer amount of flame that leaves the vehicle is immense, enough to melt through most armour and even some defensive structures. The tank has to carry large barrels of Promethium, making it extremely volatile, especially under explosive fire.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

They exchange the Lascannon energy coils for promethium canisters.

Well both the Inferno Cannon and Flamestorm Cannon have Strength 6. You roll a D6 and add the Strength of the weapon and have to outmatch a vehicles armour to penetrate it. Sentinels have armour 10. Rhinos have Armour 11 at the front. So with a lucky roll you could destroy lightly armoured vehicles.

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

Both weapons have the same strength...

So there's no reason why a Flamestorm Cannon would be any better at destroying vehicles than the Hellhound's Inferno Cannon (ie: rubbish).


BL: 'destroying light vehicles' is represented by being able to target LV's.


The Promethium canisters are part of the sponsons, and are about the height of a man IIRC.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

in 40k the flamestorm cannon is barely better than a heavy bolter at penetrating vehicles, and most importantly it's worse than an autocannon at doing so. As has been pointed out, it has the same chance of damaging a vehicle as a hellhound.

It doesn't deserve an AT stat.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Ok thanks guys. While I guess you could argue for getting AT6+ to allow for hitting Rhinos etc, leaving it as AP3+ IC seems fair.

Right, so I have amended the stats accordingly, and also revised the Crusader vs Redeemer slightly to emphasise the difference between them:-
- the Crusader gets transport and an enhanced FF attack,  
- the Redeemer gets better fire-power and an enhanced MW FF attack.

Note, only the Prometheus (and Ares) gets a FF4+ attack, the rest are on FF5+. And I am really not sold on giving any LR other than a CC6+, so can someone explain Hena's CC5+

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I don't see why the Redeemer should get a Multi Melta attack, it's a completely optional upgrade in Warhammer 40,000, moreover it's one that's at odds with the tank's primary anti-infantry role.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It could be argued that the tank's primary role is either anti heavy infantry, or general close up destruction and MM complements either of those to some degree. Not to say that I think it's necessary (which I do not).

Put it down to 'artistic licence'.   Seriously though, there needs to be some form of demarkation between the variants, so, going back to your earlier quote, the roles are:-

Land Raider - Main Battle Tank, with anti-tank bias.
Land Raider Crusader - Transport tank, with Firefight bias.
Land Raider Redeemer - Anti-Personel tank, with a respectable Firefight ability too.
Land Raider Helios* - Main Battle Tank, with enhanced shooting.
Land Raider Prometheus** - Anti-Personel tank, with a Command and Control role in some manner.

The point about the MM is that, although an upgrade in 40K, it gives the LRR a slight edge over the LRC, and the weapon stats are in line with those of the Land Speeder. So you get an anti infantry bias with good support capabilities (indeed, making these variants 'upgrade' only would probably be a good move anyway).

Although the MM is apparently standard on the LRC in 40K, adding it tends to make the LRC a no-brainer choice over the other 'Raiders, while using some part of the stats to either or both tanks breaks the consistent weapon stats principle.

BTW, I have been re-reading the various threads, and really like TRC 'enhanced Command' principle for the Prometheus. Any thoughts on this?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

It used to be standard but isn't anymore per the latest Space Marines codex.

Thanks vytzka, so perhaps not so 'artistic' after all.

On a slightly more serious note, given the way (and frequency) that GW change things, this does give us some lattitude on the weapon load-out to allow some finer balancing between the variants - hence the use of the MM 'upgrade' to the LRR.

However, if removed altogether, we revert to the problem that the LRC becomes better than the LRR and we have no easy way to fix this except through the addition of some other weapon that provides sufficient ooomph to warrant EA+1. The alternative is to remove the EA+1 from the Hurricane bolters on the LRC and give both tanks FF4+ in compensation (so only slightly better than a normal LR). Thoughts?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

As for CC5+ on Redeemer/Crusader, those things are fitted with Frag Assault Launchers on the front. In 40k that makes the squad assaulting out of it count as being armed with frag grenades (which of course doesn't do anything whatsoever a person unfamilliar with 40k would expect, but that's a different topic).

Note that the Black Tempöars are still stuck with their old Codex. So the Multi-melta on THEIR Land Raider Crusaders are still mandatory.

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

GW is currently working on a new Templars Codex, expect it to fall in line.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Are they? I'm only aware of Space Wolves and Blood Angels.

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

It's happening.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter