Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?




 Merchandise




Apocalypse Homebrew - Emperor's Firestorm Hellhound Squadron

For discussing and developing homebrew datasheets for Apocalypse

Postby jlong05 » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:36 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
jlong05 wrote:Emperor's Flame Inferno Cannon: As normal Inferno Cannon but uses the Apocalypse Flame Template. AP is changed to AP5. Range and LOS is as Normal Inferno Cannon(ie. 24").

getting the whole 16.5" Template within 24" and completly within LOS is going to be pretty tough, isnt it? you dont want to make the Template bigger only to lead to more cases when you cant actually shoot at all...


OK. I assumed the units that were under the template(but not in LOS would just be counted as not hit, but I guess the RaW of the FAQ says it must be all in range and LOS. Based on this, I can see your point and it would have to have a 36" range. I guess the issues with the range extension and AP are minor as the AP has been reduced to 5 standard and is only better when combined(which makes it hard also to do due to range and LOS issues. I guess it should be adjusted to:

Emperor's Flame Inferno Cannon: As normal Inferno Cannon but uses the Apocalypse Flame Template. AP is changed to AP5. Range is amended to 36".

Would this now work for everyone?
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby jlong05 » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:38 pm

killmaimburn wrote:As a 1 on the table it won't effect the monolith just as a 1 on the table won't effect something with demonic possession.(I believe both codexs have rules stating this) Its to do with the crew being scared of the new red and sooty paint job. It won't actually hurt a titan, is that ok (that was my vague intent)
That's true. I forgot that Monoliths ignore the Shaken results. Never mind on the concern.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby killmaimburn » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:16 pm

jlong05 wrote:I can see your point and it would have to have a 36" range.
Well maybe now I don't want it :llorar , I wanted it at post 36, that was then this is now... (totally overboard hissy fit in jest because i just read back and saw folks saying your idea of not firing the bolter was a good one :banghead :wink:)
I think having its range go up by a third, after what we'd come to as a fairly fine tuned settlement means a bit more tampering, i don't think the sheet\vehicles can go up in price any more (it becomes prohibitive) So we'll need to pour on a negative or 2. How about either\both (as I described in first one) a limitation like they can be shot at as if they were a unit of vehicles (must also remain coherant), or a flaw they haven't discovered that leads to them being more likely to explode.e.g. open topped. (or ..and I think i'm less keen on this one because it makes things more complex.. only 'hits' get the AP bonus)
Last edited by killmaimburn on Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
killmaimburn
Now Vanus Clade
 
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham, mid-land
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby jlong05 » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:27 pm

killmaimburn wrote:
jlong05 wrote:I can see your point and it would have to have a 36" range.
Well maybe now I don't want it :llorar , I wanted it at post 36, that was then this is now... (totally overboard hissy fit in jest because i just read back and saw folks saying your idea of not firing the bolter was a good one :banghead :wink:)
I think having its range go up by a third, after what we'd come to as a fairly fine tuned settlement means a bit more tampering, i don't think the sheet\vehicles can go up in price any more (it becomes prohibitive) So we'll need to pour on a negative or 2. How about either\both (as I described in first one) a limitation like they can be shot at as if they were a unit of vehicles (must also remain coherent), or a flaw they haven't discovered that leads to them being more likely to explode.e.g. open topped. (or ..and I think i'm less keen on this one because it makes things more complex.. only 'hits' get the AP bonus)
Not to worry. All my posts today have been while I was at work and have been more just throwing out ideas. Let me think on it after I get home and have my books and I will see if I can come up with an updated rule set that everyone can live with and let still be enough for you to be happy again. Honestly I preferred the earlier version but was unaware with how the flamer worked on vehicles. This was major news to me, and honestly I don't really agree with it. Seems a bit silly that vehicle mounted weapons work that way, but handheld weapons can spray over an area that is not direct from the weapon mount. Just me though and I always try to follow RaW.

I am sure I can make an updated datasheet that is true to the idea and fits the rules without issue. :D
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:46 pm

jlong05 wrote:Honestly I preferred the earlier version but was unaware with how the flamer worked on vehicles. This was major news to me, and honestly I don't really agree with it. Seems a bit silly that vehicle mounted weapons work that way, but handheld weapons can spray over an area that is not direct from the weapon mount. Just me though and I always try to follow RaW.

well until the (:roll:) FAQ, Vehicle Mounted Template Weapons worked just like those fired by non-Vehicles. i dont imagine many people choose to follow the FAQ in this regard (it nerfs short range turret mounted weapons, and unfairly rewards penalises players depending on how they build certain kits, like Landraiders).

i stick to the original Rulebook RaW in this regard:
put the Template so it touches as many models in the target unit as possible, with its narrow end touching any point on the hull.
casualties are removed from within range (measured from the closest point on the hull) and LOS (from the weapon mount), although need not necessarily be removed from under the Template.

ive got a feeling im not the only person who still plays it that way... ;)

hope that helps :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby jlong05 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:33 am

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:
jlong05 wrote:Honestly I preferred the earlier version but was unaware with how the flamer worked on vehicles. This was major news to me, and honestly I don't really agree with it. Seems a bit silly that vehicle mounted weapons work that way, but handheld weapons can spray over an area that is not direct from the weapon mount. Just me though and I always try to follow RaW.

well until the (:roll:) FAQ, Vehicle Mounted Template Weapons worked just like those fired by non-Vehicles. i dont imagine many people choose to follow the FAQ in this regard (it nerfs short range turret mounted weapons, and unfairly rewards penalises players depending on how they build certain kits, like Landraiders).

i stick to the original Rulebook RaW in this regard:
put the Template so it touches as many models in the target unit as possible, with its narrow end touching any point on the hull.
casualties are removed from within range (measured from the closest point on the hull) and LOS (from the weapon mount), although need not necessarily be removed from under the Template.

ive got a feeling im not the only person who still plays it that way... ;)

hope that helps :)

~ Tim


OK, This is the way I play it also. I always have, however it looks like the Inferno Cannon itself appears to have a different rule for its use which appears to cause the issue here. Originally I had envisioned the following scenario: See Attached Image.

If this is how the rules work then my original suggestion would be fine. What does everyone think?

By this example. The Light blue would be a normal hit (AP5), the dark blue would be at AP4, and the Green would be at AP3.
Attachments
example.jpg
example.jpg (9.8 KiB) Viewed 5024 times
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:43 am

jlong05 wrote:OK, This is the way I play it also. I always have, however it looks like the Inferno Cannon itself appears to have a different rule for its use which appears to cause the issue here.

yes, the breakdown i gave above applies to normal Template weapons (Heavy Flamer, Flamer etc) - not the Inferno Cannon, which is a very special case.

using the standard Inferno Cannon rules (see IG Codex and IG FAQ), instead of placing the Template touching the hull (or the weapon, depending on how you do such things), you place it at a distance, more like how you resolve a Blast or Ordnance weapon.

you must touch as many models as possible within the target unit whilst keeping the whole Template within Range (either measured from the hull as per the rulebook or from the weapon, as per the (:roll:) rulebook FAQ) and within LOS (of the weapon mount). this means you can quite possibly be forced to rotate the Template, so that the narrow end isnt even pointing towards the firer.

hope that helps :)

~ Tim
p.s. personally i prefer the 2nd ed Inferno Cannon rules, where you put the Template touching the firer (like a Heavy Flamer shot etc) but then it whooshed forwards a number of inches determined by the Artillery Dice (between 0-10), hitting everything in its path. :twisted:
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby jlong05 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:20 am

OK, So the followup example then would be the following image. This would indicate the Black units are all unaffected, and the green would all be hit at AP3 as all three are combining fire.

Which do we as a community want to use as the rules for the upgraded formation then? Standard Heavy Flamer rules so touching the tank? or Inferno Cannon rules uses the convoluted rules as described in the FAQ. ;)

I personally am fine either way, although I really like the standard Heavy Flamer method. Just my 2 cents. Or is that 2 pence?
Attachments
example2.jpg
example2.jpg (6.3 KiB) Viewed 5018 times
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby Ljundhammer » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:41 am

Personally I'd use the 'real' (i.e. convoluted) rules for the hellhound. Its points cost has been codex 'balanced' by GW (I appreciate the irony in that statement) so by changing the way the tank works it will need a points adjustment.

A hellhound that doesn't throw its Flame Template is simply a 'Heavy Flame Tank' in the mould of the Which Hunter Incinerator. In fact your original method works well for them IMHO.

I throw in thrupence
When in deadly danger
When beset by doubt
Run in little circles
Wave your arms and shout
- parody of the litany of command
User avatar
Ljundhammer
Brother-Captain
Brother-Captain
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham - the North

Postby killmaimburn » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:07 pm

I'd also go with the convuluted\way its written, its a unqiue weapon, and by using the same vehicles and same terminology and then not using it as guard players normally use it...means we aren't really using hellhounds anymore (more a kind of baby baal.. my my my my baby baal :lol: ) thats why i was saying that with + range and + AP as well as + size,it wouldn't be that much fun for nids, who cares about more bodies than bullets when you can kill 90-120ish or so a turn from 36"s with no saves.
I think we need to slam the nerf hammer down on either the range the AP or the vehicle itself (open topped, or must stay within cohearncy treated as a unit for being fired on, only use big template when combined...something bad) All of those are pretty simple options.We could even make them stationary ( a fixed firing point 8O )they'd still kick butt with roaming towers and 36" range. They could deploy as normal and then the techmarines wire them together.

EDIT
Darn i can't add html to the shoutbox
Have a quick read of this thread It did make me chortle
http://warseer.com/forums/40k-tactics/1 ... ces-2.html
Last edited by killmaimburn on Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
killmaimburn
Now Vanus Clade
 
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham, mid-land
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby jlong05 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:12 pm

KMB: You got me thinking. I should have some new cool suggestions today. :twisted:
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby jlong05 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:25 pm

Alright, I have been poring over my thoughts and revisions and have come up wit this. First let me explain my thoughts here. I liked the removal of the physical Tech Adept model that was suggested and using the Venerable status for a tank said to be carrying him instead. Also I updated the rules to indicate the Strike Force rule with forces them to deploy together. I chose to not enforce a coherency rule for future use as vehicles normally do not have that so I didn't think that should be added. Overall I decided for play use and points fairness that we should try to NOT change the standard Inferno Cannon rules and usage. As that is what makes Hellhounds what they are. As such I decided to try out the larger template for combined fire use ONLY. so the tanks by themselves still are simply Hellhounds, granted one with Venerable, but together they can achieve so much more.

Look over the new rules and tell me what you all think. KMB. Most of this is a copy of Post 35 which you loved so much, but tweaked to incorporate the other suggestions as well.

---------------------------------------------------
'Emperor's Firestorm' Hellhound Squadron

Points 150 + models

Formation:
3 Hellhounds.
One Hellhound must be designated as the command tank.

Special Rules:
Strike Force: All tanks in the squadron must be deployed within 6” of the command tank or, if coming on from reserve, they must enter the table within 6” of the point entered by the command tank.

Command Tank: Carries a Tech Adept and as such, is counted as ‘Venerable’ to represent the onboard adept.

Torch 'Em: Two Hellhounds (within 12” of each other) may choose to combine their actions and fire at the same target using their Inferno Cannons. When this is done, place the Apocalypse Flame template as you would normally place for Inferno Cannon use. When this is done, the weapons template is placed for all vehicles together (ie. single template placement) and affected models are identified as a whole. The Target area must be in range and LOS of both Hellhounds.

Hotter than hell: The combined blast is so hot minor terrain may be incinerated by it. Any flammable terrain (such as bushes, fences, woods etc) should be removed from directly under the template (note large woods only partially under, partially remain as only the area on fire is removed). Being entirely enveloped by such intense sustained flames can distract crew, When firing on armor 13 or higher (and a hit is rolled!) treat this as a 1 on a glance (or a 1 on a super heavy damage table).

Don't shoot that!: During a combined fire action, the on-board heavy bolter for both Hellhounds may not be fired. Such actions would expose the ammunition to such heat levels as would likely cause the bolter ammo to explode prematurely causing a catastrophic explosion.

Fresh from the Adeptus Mechanicus: These new models are the latest the techpriest elite could muster, the cost of this data sheet includes the mandatory upgrades of rough terrain modification, extra armor and smoke.(No other upgrades may be taken).
-------------------------------------------------

My big questions at this point are: Do we need to adjust AP for combined fire also? Maybe AP3? And if so should there be an added disadvantage or are there enough already? Or is the larger AP4 template good enough for the point cost?
Last edited by jlong05 on Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:56 pm

jlong05 wrote:Torch 'Em: Two Hellhounds (within 12” of each other) may choose to combine their actions and fire at the same target using their Inferno Cannons. When this is done, place the Apocalypse Flame template as you would normally place for Inferno Cannon use. When this is done, the weapons template is placed for all vehicles together (ie. single template placement) and affected models are identified as a whole. The Target area must be in range and LOS of both Hellhounds.
-------------------------------------------------

My big questions at this point are: Do we need to adjust AP for combined fire also? Maybe AP3? And if so should there be an added disadvantage or are there enough already? Or is the larger AP4 template good enough for the point cost?

why not make it so if 2 HHs combine fire it works as above, and if a 3rd HH joins in you get a 1pt bonus in both S & AP (like Fire Prism combined fire)?

the fact that you need to get the big Template entirely within Range and LOS of all 3 Vehicles should be enough of a limiting factor (and if a Vehicle is unable to get range and LOS to the whole Template they automatically miss so are unable to contribute to the S & AP).

hows that?

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby killmaimburn » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:13 pm

back on firmer ground again now, I reckon ap3 is conferred if the 3 tank joins in? and is lost when the 3rd tank goes.Because of the built in redundancy of a spare when using it as a ap4 super big template I'd say make it 200 points. (possibly more if you allow flank charge :lol: )Remember that good tactical placement will mean LOS isn't too much of an issue (especially if you shoot some .w..oo...ds, oh dear TIMM!! help us, do we need to add something to target empty space (like the whirlwind wording how would you add a simple wording for terrain clearance or would you fix a sentance so that it means destroying trees can only be done if your firing at the unit majority embedded in them (thats probably the easier more sensible?)
I'm liking this thread- in my only little dream world we are the dev team (but without the protestors at the windows asking for codex rewrites)
Woah, sorry for duplicating your idea, mine apparently took over half an hour to write :oops:
Last edited by killmaimburn on Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
killmaimburn
Now Vanus Clade
 
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham, mid-land
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby jlong05 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:03 am

So we are saying to amend the Torch 'Em rule to allow 2 HH to combine and use the Apoc template at AP4, or also allow 3 HH to combine for an Apoc template at AP3, +1S right? I would also say that the intention to combine fire must be chosen before any ranges have been measured. This way if one or more HHs are our of the appropriate range or LOS then their action is lost. Just my take here though.

I would agree with a bump in the base cost to 200 given the AP and S bonus. If everyone is in agreement I will post up another followup with the amended rules.

Next questions is: Who has the models and the time to play test this for us? I honestly have no HHs to use.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.

Image
User avatar
jlong05
Master Jedi
Commander
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Arizona, USA (In a Lead Lined Fridge)
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

PreviousNext



Return to 40K Apocalypse Homebrew Datasheets




 Social Links