Anyone knows any Land Raider's profile existing in any manual?
Please?
Land Raider Profile
Deathwatch: Rites of Battle p. 172
It doesn't follow the exact same conventions as Only War, though, but it's very similar, so at the very least, it'll be an excellent base for some homebrewing to make the Land Raider fit just right into Only War.
Same book has Drop Pod, Land Speeder, Space Marine Bike and Attack Bike, Predator, Rhino, Dreadnought, Thunderhawk, Stormraven, Vindicator, Whirlwind and Warhound stats
Also same book contains Land Raider, Land Speeder and Rhino variants.
Until they make other than Daemon Vehicle stats for Only War or Black Crusade those are only stats for Adeptus Astartes vehicle that I'm aware.
Profiles for the Rhino are also available in the RT supplement Into the Storm, and the Dark Heresy vehicle apocrypha.
Profiles for the Rhino are also available in the RT supplement Into the Storm, and the Dark Heresy vehicle apocrypha.
-But the Dark Heresy online supplement Apocrypha: Vehicles and Riding Beasts uses a somewhat different system than all of the other games, so stats don't really translate very well.
Really hoping that this doesn't lead to some IG players having to fight a Chaos Land Raider, AND the CSMs that will be filing out of it, because I don't see much beyond a Chaos Lord and his retinue or an Inquisitor and their retinue having the clout to pull a Land Raider to the field. Just my shivering opinion, of course.
If you DO use the stat block from DW: MotX, PLEASE remember to peruse the errata; the land raider was a bit too ridiculous, otherwise.
Not too sure how different a Land Raider HAS to be from a Leman Russ, though. All of its armor should be similar, or a smidge higher, than the front armor of a Land Raider or Baneblade, the weapons are easy, it has carry capacity, and +20-30 hull points. In the event you don't have Mark, or you don't want to play with conversions, I'd like to think I'm rather close. The other big difference, of course, is weapon accuracy, as Space Marines and their Chaos counterparts, and the veterans Inquisitors are likely to employ to the task, are all amongst the better shots in the galaxy, but that's more from them than rules for the tank.
But the Dark Heresy online supplement Apocrypha: Vehicles and Riding Beasts uses a somewhat different system than all of the other games, so stats don't really translate very well.
Yes, but isn't the same thing true for Deathwatch?
I wasn't actually suggesting to use these profiles; my comment was in reaction to Routa-maa's mention of stats for Astartes vehicles, and where they might be found. It is my opinion that in general it'd be best to avoid just copying stuff from the other games 1:1, because that's not how those books are meant to be used. Either tweak them, or - better yet - re-build the entire vehicle using the system present in the game you are actually playing.
From all I've read, though, it sounds as if vehicle rules as a whole deserve a makeover...
Yes, but isn't the same thing true for Deathwatch?
Not completely. The OW vehicle rules use the DW vehicle rules as their base, so they have a lot of similarities and differences based upon how important they are to their parent games (vehicles being more intrinsic to the Guard than to the Deathwatch).
BYE
Yes, but isn't the same thing true for Deathwatch?
Not completely. The OW vehicle rules use the DW vehicle rules as their base, so they have a lot of similarities and differences based upon how important they are to their parent games (vehicles being more intrinsic to the Guard than to the Deathwatch).
That was my impression- everything from Rogue Trader onward uses the same core vehicle system (sometimes with whole blocks of text Copy/Pasted), with minor tweaks to vehicle stats depending on the system. A:V&RB is a unique system, largely incompatible with the others.
In that case, perhaps it would be possible to extrapolate a sort of "formula" for how an Only War Land Raider would look like by looking at another vehicle that is already present in Deathwatch and OW, and then replicate these differences?
If one wanted to avoid just statting it based on gut-feeling and/or TT stats, that is.
Not too sure how different a Land Raider HAS to be from a Leman Russ, though. All of its armor should be similar, or a smidge higher, than the front armor of a Land Raider or Baneblade, the weapons are easy, it has carry capacity, and +20-30 hull points. In the event you don't have Mark, or you don't want to play with conversions, I'd like to think I'm rather close. The other big difference, of course, is weapon accuracy, as Space Marines and their Chaos counterparts, and the veterans Inquisitors are likely to employ to the task, are all amongst the better shots in the galaxy, but that's more from them than rules for the tank.
Landraiders hav e 4 Hull Points as opposed to 3, so increase Structural Integrity by 33%.
Edited by bogi_khaosaIn that case, perhaps it would be possible to extrapolate a sort of "formula" for how an Only War Land Raider would look like by looking at another vehicle that is already present in Deathwatch and OW, and then replicate these differences?
If one wanted to avoid just statting it based on gut-feeling and/or TT stats, that is.
Gee, if only there was someone on this forum who was a specialist on analysis of weapons and vehicles, particularly those in Deathwatch...
http://40kroleplay.weebly.com/40k-roleplay-blog/revised-vehicle-combat-rules
In general, Astartes weapons are approximately (roughly!) 4 points stronger than their mortal equivalents (this offsets Unnatural Toughness, btw). A comparison of vehicle stats in OW confirms that a 4 point difference to my adjusted stats is a good first approximation.
I did a statistical analysis of APs in Only War, including SoH:
AV 10:8-25, AV 11: 20-25, AV 12: 28-30, AV 13: 32-40, AV 14: 40-48
These are de facto ranges derived from comparing TT AV with OW AP. From the ranges you can see that some AV 10 vehicles have been given AV 11-equivalent APs (22 or 25). I derived from that a range of guidelines for converting other vehicles to OW:
AV 10 8-20 AV 11: 21-25 AV12: 26-30, AV 13: 31-40, AV 14: 41+
As you can see, using my adjusted DW stats from the blog and deducting 4 lands you roundabout in the OW brackets. Incidentally, the 4 point difference between mortal and Astartes weapons means that you could run Deathwatch with OW weapons and just give most of them Felling. I could see SoBs with 1d10+5 Felling Bolters too...
The most important thing to remember when fielding Land Raiders is that you need to adapt my rule that all attacks that rolld 2d6+S vs AV in the TT should half enemy AP (not double Pen like Melta). This alone shaves of 23 to 25 points off the armour of a LR. Doubling Pen or giving a Vanquisher Cannon the Accurate quality is a poor substitute.
SI is roughly = 10xHull Points.
Alex
Good numbers! Though I don't really understand the "-4 AP" rule, if AV stats in the TT are equal. Or is this just based on FFG's Astartes buff?
I wasn't thinking about universal vehicle profiles, given that these RPGs also do not use universal weapon profiles, but more about how a vehicle from one game would look in another based upon differences in the profiles of a vehicle that is present in both, such as a Rhino (does OW have Rhino stats?).
You know, my "rosetta stone" approach.
Or did I misunderstand you here, and you meant that a Marine Land Raider in Only War should have 4 AP less than your table for DW?
Incidentally, the 4 point difference between mortal and Astartes weapons means that you could run Deathwatch with OW weapons and just give most of them Felling. I could see SoBs with 1d10+5 Felling Bolters too...
Why would you do that?
Either Human weapons are intended to suck in comparison (post-DW), or they are comparable (original DH & GW's games). Adding the "Felling" quality sounds like a weird and conditional middle ground that would make no-one happy.
Not a fan of the immersion-breaking "Felling" trait in general, by the way. All I see when looking at it is the designers' unvoiced confession that Unnatural Toughness sucks.
Or did I misunderstand you here, and you meant that a Marine Land Raider in Only War should have 4 AP less than your table for DW?
Yes. The numbers in the table or optimized stats for DW - to make things behave against each as much as in TT as possible. (Astartes weapons vs Astartes Vehicles). A very few weapon tweaks have been added too.
When I got my hands on OW a short while ago, what I did was compare OW weapons and DW weapons. Same with vehicle AV. There is a fair deal variation in difference but on average about 4 points difference is best. Sometimes this 4 point difference also takes differences in Pen into account. But it's not always this 4 point difference. Some weapons in OW have been made better than in DW.
Example: The OW MM has the same stats as in DW. But in DW AV 14 is 50 (AV 13 is 41), while in OW it is 40+. So the MM got much better relative to AV 14. They evidently realized what I said in my initial analysis when RoB came out: heavy armour is too heavy. So in OW the reduced AP but kept MM damage. But it's still not very good, they did the wrong thing. Now they have on average 11 damage points against a Leman Russ. This isn't too scary with SI 55. If they had adopted my "half the AP" rule it would have been 2d10+16 Pen 12 versus 20 or 19 average damage (ignoring my multiple exploding dice RF and that I also have +1d10 damage at short range for melta, as they originally did). That way they could have afforded to not make such a big difference between MM and Meltagun.
Long story short: they key to providing consistency between various power levels in different games is the rule that everything that rolls 2d6 vs AV in TT should half armour in 40K RP. Including melee attacks by MCs! It avoids being forced to up damage/pen needlessly. Or reducing AP unduly.
Why would you do that?
Not a fan of the immersion-breaking "Felling" trait in general, by the way. All I see when looking at it is the designers' unvoiced confession that Unnatural Toughness sucks.
I meant that as an easy way to bringing gamelines together. If you mix DW and DH1 characters and use DH1 weapon stats but with Felling(1)... that could work. There would be no Astartes/Mortal Bolters anymore, just 1d10+5 Felling(1) Bolters. It's an approach for people who are looking for a simple fix. Plasma would need it too. Melta wouldn't.
Alex
Not a fan of the immersion-breaking "Felling" trait in general, by the way. All I see when looking at it is the designers' unvoiced confession that Unnatural Toughness sucks.
That reminds me of a post from the early days of the DW Forums, where a poster likens 'Unnaturals' and 'Felling' to to little kids arguing:
"My guy's so tough, he's double-tough !"
"But my's guy's weapon is so tough it makes you guy regular -tough!"
Yes. The numbers in the table or optimized stats for DW - to make things behave against each as much as in TT as possible. (Astartes weapons vs Astartes Vehicles). A very few weapon tweaks have been added too.
Ah! Yeah, that sounds like a good solution then.
I meant that as an easy way to bringing gamelines together. If you mix DW and DH1 characters and use DH1 weapon stats but with Felling(1)... that could work. There would be no Astartes/Mortal Bolters anymore, just 1d10+5 Felling(1) Bolters. It's an approach for people who are looking for a simple fix. Plasma would need it too. Melta wouldn't.
Ah, I see. Still not a fan of that trait, though - it's way too weird for me to have a weapon that is supposed to be stronger (good against stronger enemies) work normally on normal enemies. That's just ... a bit silly?
It's bad enough that we have Penetration with zero influence on anything except armour...
It has that cheesy smell of certain MMO mechanics where your enemies get stronger just because you do, even though you're still fighting the same guys. I always considered this hurtful to immersion, and contrary to the purpose of getting stronger.
Wasn't it you who proposed an 1d10+7 profile as a middle ground for everyone once? That seems like a much better solution.
Better yet would be to just do away with Unnaturals, because they are equally immersion-breaking. Let's have some fun watching the S60 Storm Trooper win at arm-wrestling a S40 Unnatural Strength Space Marine!
Even if you wouldn't want to adopt my alternate injury system, a Marine's Unnatural Toughness could easily be represented by simply giving Space Marines double Wounds or whatever. Poof, gone is the mechanical need for weapon profile differences!
But I'm starting to ramble again.
That reminds me of a post from the early days of the DW Forums, where a poster likens 'Unnaturals' and 'Felling' to to little kids arguing:
"My guy's so tough, he's double-tough !"
"But my's guy's weapon is so tough it makes you guy regular -tough!"
Hahah, yes, I remember that one too!
FWIW, from what I have seen in Into The Storm and Battlefleet Koronus, the armour stats in those books are comparable with OW (and with DW for the Drop Pod). Which means that regarding vehicles we also have a 2-tier system: humans versus Astartes.
Alex
Where can I buy a 'human-scale Land Raider'?
Where can I buy a 'human-scale Land Raider'?
The same place that sells civilian Terminator armour and civilian bolters, I reckon.
Into The Storm and Battlefleet Koronus are archaic books by this point by RPG standards.
They also have different stats for lasguns in RT, so therefore I suppose there must be a Rogue Trader lasgun and a Guard lasgun.
Either that, or the system has evolved in the last several years.
Edited by bogi_khaosa
Where can I buy a 'human-scale Land Raider'?
The same place that sells civilian Terminator armour and civilian bolters, I reckon.
:lol:
Into The Storm and Battlefleet Koronus are archaic books by this point by RPG standards.
They also have different stats for lasguns in RT, so therefore I suppose there must be a Rogue Trader lasgun and a Guard lasgun.
Either that, or the system has evolved in the last several years.
Weapons between those two systems are easily exchangable so that's not a problem. The main thing is vehicle armour and SI.
Alex