There are 10/10/10 vehicles that have saves in Epic.


It can fire at point blank range and CC values include a small amount of time to approach hand-to-hand. Surely, they are capable of putting up a "wall of lead" defense against nutters with chainswords. There are other justifications as well - maybe a crewman or two for immediate maintenance or AP mines/other close defenses at any given position.

6+ doesn't seem unreasonable for either armor or CC.

I considered Infantry status. However then discounted it because it makes them to good - i.e. save 4+ in ruins and the like.
I'd go with Cc6+ to cover point blank fire or even backwash from the missiles firing.

AA wise they mount krak missiles, twin linked but only engage targets in the air. So that would be 30cm AA5+

The rational for more than one on a base is to avoid popcorn tarantula

That would also imply that the Whirlwind Hyperios, which mounts the same weapon, is pretty rubbish as an AA vehicle.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yep. Still could give it 2 attacks with some bumf about its abilities.

Otherwise for the AA T you run into the problem of very good weapon on poor unit and the odd effect it has on balance and point values.

I keep forgetting most you guys are over the "pond". So sorry for getting into this conversation late.

FrogBear, you got a lot to digest huh?




I like this set up for the Tarantula E/C, but I think there should at least a 6+ save. They have a crappy armor rating in 40K yes, but they aren't made out of paper mache' either. I'd also give them the ability to drop pod as their transportation choice.



I'd make it LV 5+ 0+ 5+ and keep it 15cm so it can keep up with other infantry formations. I'd also drop the "Ignore Cover" rule and keep "Disrupt".

That's my 2 cents...

E&C:



So...not what you said I wanted in the previous post? And it would be thirteen years ago, actually. Epic 40,000 came out in 1997.



That assumes that one iteration need replace the other. Indeed, the first line of the fluff on Sentry Guns says that "Many veterans refer to sentry guns as "Tarantulas"; the origins of this name are unknown." These need not necessarily be the same Tarantulas. In fact, their unit entry calls them Sentry Guns, not Tarantulas (with the sole exception being the damage section of their special rules). The datafax says 'Tarantula Sentry Gun' but it also says they're seventeen feet wide and only carry 600 rounds of ammunition (the first seems unsupportable based on the model, and the other is just dumb). So these aren't even necessarily the same Tarantulas.

Even if they are, Space Marines have had superior versions of things before (power armor and Terminator armor both spring to mind). This would not be particularly out of the ordinary. Nor would it be unacceptable to fudge things a little for playability, which has also happened before.

Plus, as I've said before - for the majority of Epic's history, Tarantulas were mobile grav-effect vehicles. Ignoring that because Forge World said otherwise is neither obligatory nor necessarily wise. Especially when compromising with that makes things more workable.



It says that "their lack of mobility severely restrict[s] their use during fluid battle." However, it also mentions Storm Troopers rapidly deploying them from the backs of Valkyries, and them being airdropped onto the battle zone, and takes pains to note that they can fit in the back of a Rhino (or a Chimera). While their transport might not be ideal, it's certainly possible.

Certainly it would not seem out of keeping for them to be redeployed during a larger engagement like the ones Epic games represent - large chunks of an Epic battlefield are arguably not active battlefield situations. Battlefield, yes, but not active.

In fact, let's see some quotes about Marine attitudes toward Tarantulas:

"They are well liked by the troops, as sentry guns free them from long cold lonely nights on guard duty."

"Many Space Marine Chapters also keep a small supply of sentry weapons in their armoury, finding them especially useful for routine guard duties due to their relative lack of manpower."

"Tarantulas are only deployed for static defence, their lack of mobility severely restricting their use in a fluid battle."

I dunno about you, but I'd say a move stat of 5cm or 10cm is pretty severely restricted. I'd also say that there's nothing in that statement about Marines that says they wouldn't move them around as they were needed, or that they only use them for guard duties.

* * *

TRC:



They're about the same size as an infantryman - why shouldn't they get cover in ruins? They're a lot smaller than any LV I can think of in any list.

* * *

General Comment:

The Thunderfire Cannon is an artillery piece. That makes it Infantry by all the standards of Epic so far - see the Eldar and Siegemasters. Opinion was divided in the discussion thread about the Thunderfire as to whether it should be Ignore Cover or Disrupt, so I kept both. The stats are basically what they were in BlackLegion's original discussion, IIRC.

Note that there was an entire discussion thread about the Thunderfire. It might be worth looking at that, as well.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I wasn't going on that kind of argument - rather what works in a marine army that is always on the look out for popcorn activations!

You're kidding, right?

only deployed for static defense

Thaty says very clearly that they don't move them about. Not only that, but the other quotes talk about how marines like them because they're unmanned so don't need marines to sit around with them the whole time. In other words, not only do they choose not to move them during battles, there's also noone there to move them.

They're immobile, unmanned drones.



Having the older style, mobile tarantulas is fine in a list that represents an old-style or pre-heresy tech or something, but a modern list like the Imperial Fists should represent the latest version of the equipment.

And moving them (with Rhinos or what have you) is redeploying them. They're not "bounce around the battlefield engaging things" units. But redeploying them is both reasonable and possible - they fit into Rhinos, .



A group of Tarantulas can carry as much firepower as a tactical squad could (more, actually). If there's a marine and a few servitors watching them, that's still a greatly reduced commitment of manpower.

5cm or 10cm would be the slowest speed something moved in Epic. It's not quick. But considering the possible time-scale of an Epic battle, it's not unreasonable either.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Field Guns in Epic are Infantry and have Speed 10cm because they have a crew.
Tarantulas have no crew so they should be Light Vehicles with no or a 6+ save at best.
I would give them Speed 0 because they probably CAN move by itself but very slow (= with a March action they can move 15cm on Roads).

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

That's a good argument for making them transportable in vehicles. It doesn't justify giving them their own movement.

Yes, but there isn't. They're completely independent.



By all means allow them to be transported for redeployment purposes, but there's no way a stationary gun platform can move on its own.

And Epic 40,000 homogenised everything into basic groups.
Not a good game system to draw from if you're looking for rules/mechanics examples.


The IG Tarantula is easily 17 scale feet wide. They're really big. The Marine one has shorter legs, making it more like 12 scale feet wide.


Sounds truly perfect for the Imperial Fists in a Siege situation.


You're reading the sentence wrong.

It doesn't say their "slow mobililty" restricts their use in a fluid battle, it says their "lack of mobility" restricts their use in a fluid battle.

That means that they have to wait for targets to come to them, not that Marines will be pick them up and carry them slowly towards the enemy so that they can partake in limited mobile warfare.

Just because the sentence includes the words "fluid battle", that in no way implies that the Tarantulas are partaking in any part of the "fluidity".


I just checked with a couple of models sitting on my shelf, and the central part of the Tarantula is pretty much the same size as a Sentinel's cab. Much bigger than an infantryman.


It's some kind of direct-fire gun cannon, not artillery. Could easily be infantry though.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wow! This thing just got heated...

As to move the conversation along, I propose this, using some of E/C's original proposition on Tarantulas, How about.....

Name: Tarantula Sentry Gun
Type: INF
Speed: 0cm
Armour: 6+
FF: 6+ (5+)
CC: None

Weapons:
- Multi Melta - 15cm, MW5+ and Small Arms, Macro Weapon
OR
- Twin Lascannon 45cm, AT4+
OR
- Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm, AP4+ (Changes FF rating to 5+)
Notes: A Tarantula Sentry Gun may be armed with one of the weapons listed above.
Formation of 6 for 150 points.

Transportation: Drop pod for...50pts per 3 stands
OR
Rhino transport for 25pts per 3 stands...
Rapid Redeployment - Tarantula Sentry Guns are subjected to slow firing if redeployed

At least the Thunderfire Cannon has tracks I see them as Light Vehicles as they are rather big (bigger than a Tarantula even). BTW They can use Drop Pods.

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