Just recently in a game I'm running I encountered a bit of a problem. My player had recently acquired two Rhino APCs to drive around in as they explore a new planet, which prompted one of them to ask how you actually get a rhino down to the surface of the planet? And so there's the question: how do you transport any of the larger vehicles from a ship down to a planet? Can they fit in an Arvus light? A Halo Barge?

Furthermore, for the atmospheric crafts that can't reach orbit, like the Chicopteran scout, how would you get those down to the surface as well?

Thanks,

Nihilius Quint

If you go by BFG, capital ships up to the size of a frigate are capable of planetary landing, so the Imperial Navy and most Rogue Traders operating military ground and air vehicles would probably use a bulk transport to ferry these.

Here 's a cover from a codex book; notice the thing in the background? Or how about this example from 1E era?

But smaller options for 1-2 vehicles should be available as well .. Forgeworld has this little baby on sale, and the Steel Legion mod for DoW has a large transport for two tanks as seen on this screenshot . I don't think either vehicle has ever been shown in a GW studio book, but personally, I'd say they fit right into the setting.

Just recently in a game I'm running I encountered a bit of a problem. My player had recently acquired two Rhino APCs to drive around in as they explore a new planet, which prompted one of them to ask how you actually get a rhino down to the surface of the planet? And so there's the question: how do you transport any of the larger vehicles from a ship down to a planet? Can they fit in an Arvus light? A Halo Barge?

You use a Halo Barge, a modified Gun-Cutter or a Valkyrie Sky-Talon. As for atmospheric entry, ships can enter the upper stratosphere (<50km) to unload craft, even larger ones like Cruisers. Its a risky maneuver which the Navy hates beyond anything, but if you control the space of a planet its relatively painless for the ship in question.

As for Lynata's post, the larger craft is a Thunderhawk Transport and both it and the Sky-Talon have appeared in numerous FW books like Doom of Mymeara, Raid on Kastoral Novem and the Imperial Armour Aeronautica book.

Yeah, there's lots of ways, but as we have seen in many threads the orbit-to-surface interface is something that's been largely ignored.

Probably, at least partly, so you had to decide if your guys were going to deep strike in, OR have the benefit of a transport. If you could have a squad deep strike in, in their Rhino, then the Drop Pod would be mostly useless, and your squad would have sort of a bit too much extra security, for having just bamphed into the enemy's midst, where normally they'll get shot at; same thing for Guard, if a variant Valkyrie could swoop in, and deposit a filled Chimera. Not saying this is it, but sort of a thought I've had, and sometimes, at least, these game lines try really hard to follow the Tabletop, even when it would be better not to.

For in-game, I don't remember any Valkyries having spaceworthiness, but that could just be my brain acting up. Usually, I imagine some undergunned lander/lighter getting the job. As for Valks, I usually imagine them getting deposited a long ways away, from the Devourers, or something, where the Guard have their main base/landing, and then the Valks can carry whatever across the planet's surface, to wherever they need to go. Sort of to maintain the "Space Marines are BEST" vibe, however, I usually remember only them, with their Thunderhawks, having real, dedicated space-to-surface transports. Again, that's possibly mostly just me, of course.

I'm not a big fan of the whole "frigates planetary landing" thing, even if the book actually does say they can; some of even the smaller classes of 40k's oversized craft just shouldn't be able to do that (imagine if the Universe, being technically a transport, though it's the size of a cruiser, could? Who needs orbital facilities?), but I'm agreeable with some of the low orbit deployments; the Elysians wouldn't work, if this wasn't possible. If I wanted to get, say, a Rhino, down to the surface, while I wait for my purchased Land Raider to arrive, and I couldn't teleport it down (GM's call), I'd order the ship to enter the crazy close zone of atmosphere, and deploy a Valkyrie, or a lighter, to carry it down, then follow it, or ride down in the Rhino, like the Marines in Aliens. Each step has some risks, but you've got ample opportunity to study the planet, and find suitable insertion/deployment zones, if the planet is even occupied by people, and they have S-to-O weaponry.

My players usually take Guncutters (which inevitably get shot down in the hands of NPC pilots), and otherwise try to "secure" a landing zone for Halo Barges if they need to bring down anything larger than a Dark Eldar reaver bike.

For in-game, I don't remember any Valkyries having spaceworthiness, but that could just be my brain acting up.

Myself, I've seen it mentioned in an Apocalypse supplement titled "Valkyries!" that used to be available on the Games Workshop website, but unfortunately the company has taken down just about anything except for their online shop.

That being said, this is 40k, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is some other source that contradicts this information. The "Space Marines = BEST" schpiel you mentioned also differs profoundly depending on the book, after all.

I'm not a big fan of the whole "frigates planetary landing" thing, even if the book actually does say they can; some of even the smaller classes of 40k's oversized craft just shouldn't be able to do that (imagine if the Universe, being technically a transport, though it's the size of a cruiser, could? Who needs orbital facilities?

The Universe would be classed as a cruiser rather than a transport. If you want to mesh sources, it's important to keep in mind that GW's BFG terminology sees transports as their own type of ship, whereas FFG's RT apparently has a cruiser hull that just acts like a transport. In short, the Universe flat-out doesn't exist in the source that mentioned planetary landings -- but if it would, I'm sure it would be an exception from this size-dependent rule.

It's a bit like saying the Valkyrie can lift a tank, and another game puts a Baneblade or Shadowsword into the tank category (rather than a superheavy), then pondering whether or not the Valk could actually lift that monster just because of inconsistent terminology.

And that's before we consider that FFG's ships are apparently a lot bigger than they are in BFG, anyways. iirc the crew difference was one or two entire decimal places?

There are other ways to resolve this inconsistency, too, though. Perhaps the Universe is just special, its technology going back to a time where much larger ships were capable of atmospheric flight thanks to more efficient thrusters and repulsorlift engines. Orbital bases are necessary because these relics of the past aren't common enough, thus making starports necessary as a workaround to this technological recession.

But in the end, it's up to you -- if you dislike the idea of larger ships being able to perform planetary landings, there is absolutely no need to include this concept into your version of 40k! We all have our own interpretation of the setting, based on official sources as well as personal preference in selecting between them. The only important thing is that everyone on your table shares a common ground.

I've read sources that claim all "atmospheric" craft: Thunderbolts, Marauders, Valkyries, Avengers, Lightnings, etc., are capable of achieving orbit, and even have space flight capabilities. These sources are inconsistent in their approaches. For example, there were originally Wrath starfighters, replaced by Thunderbolts, which were in turn replaced by Furies. That's completely contradictory to the current 40k wiki, which has Wraths replaced with Furies. 40K wasn't a work produced in whole, but a work in progress, replaced and reworked as better ideas came along, and still come along, a matter which angers the fandom to no end. Just make it work for your 'verse and don't be afraid to change your own cosmology as better ideas come along.

For in-game, I don't remember any Valkyries having spaceworthiness, but that could just be my brain acting up.

Myself, I've seen it mentioned in an Apocalypse supplement titled "Valkyries!" that used to be available on the Games Workshop website, but unfortunately the company has taken down just about anything except for their online shop.

That being said, this is 40k, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is some other source that contradicts this information. The "Space Marines = BEST" schpiel you mentioned also differs profoundly depending on the book, after all.

I'm not a big fan of the whole "frigates planetary landing" thing, even if the book actually does say they can; some of even the smaller classes of 40k's oversized craft just shouldn't be able to do that (imagine if the Universe, being technically a transport, though it's the size of a cruiser, could? Who needs orbital facilities?

The Universe would be classed as a cruiser rather than a transport. If you want to mesh sources, it's important to keep in mind that GW's BFG terminology sees transports as their own type of ship, whereas FFG's RT apparently has a cruiser hull that just acts like a transport. In short, the Universe flat-out doesn't exist in the source that mentioned planetary landings -- but if it would, I'm sure it would be an exception from this size-dependent rule.

It's a bit like saying the Valkyrie can lift a tank, and another game puts a Baneblade or Shadowsword into the tank category (rather than a superheavy), then pondering whether or not the Valk could actually lift that monster just because of inconsistent terminology.

And that's before we consider that FFG's ships are apparently a lot bigger than they are in BFG, anyways. iirc the crew difference was one or two entire decimal places?

There are other ways to resolve this inconsistency, too, though. Perhaps the Universe is just special, its technology going back to a time where much larger ships were capable of atmospheric flight thanks to more efficient thrusters and repulsorlift engines. Orbital bases are necessary because these relics of the past aren't common enough, thus making starports necessary as a workaround to this technological recession.

But in the end, it's up to you -- if you dislike the idea of larger ships being able to perform planetary landings, there is absolutely no need to include this concept into your version of 40k! We all have our own interpretation of the setting, based on official sources as well as personal preference in selecting between them. The only important thing is that everyone on your table shares a common ground.

Yeah, if I paged through all of my TT Apocalypse stuff, from the last three editions, I might find it, not sure.

For the Universe, I agree with you, except then Battlefleet Koronus lumps it in as a Transport, its job, rather than a Cruiser, its physical size, which means that it gets to use Transport rules for its upgrades. I believe this was the consensus, when I brought it up, some time ago, anyway.

As for hefting a Baneblade, I don't know. In the various Dawn of War games, take those for "canon" as you wish, a Valkyrie is what flies in the crate, to the structure that produces your Baneblade, so it MIGHT be able to lug one. Citadel of Skulls seems willing to let one (a Valkyrie Sky Talon, at least) lug off the entire Vault of Secrets, which is described as several cargo containers, and big enough to be cavernous, have room for you to move around, and display numerous trinkets, spaciously, with the one object you really want being the size of a Rhino APC. It gets a little hefty, and sometimes, I think they just say "if it's convenient, go with it. There are plenty of other ways to have the game **** you over, as you play it."

I've read sources that claim all "atmospheric" craft: Thunderbolts, Marauders, Valkyries, Avengers, Lightnings, etc., are capable of achieving orbit, and even have space flight capabilities. These sources are inconsistent in their approaches. For example, there were originally Wrath starfighters, replaced by Thunderbolts, which were in turn replaced by Furies. That's completely contradictory to the current 40k wiki, which has Wraths replaced with Furies. 40K wasn't a work produced in whole, but a work in progress, replaced and reworked as better ideas came along, and still come along, a matter which angers the fandom to no end. Just make it work for your 'verse and don't be afraid to change your own cosmology as better ideas come along.

Yep, you can count on 40k to be a hodge podge of various people's writings, even more than Star Wars used to be. For me, I sort of like just saying this works. People waited through so many FFG books to finally get a Valkyrie stat block, and where it is, plenty of others still might never have gotten it, there, and I doubt it was just to have a way to move about the ground of a planet. Oh well.

For the Universe, I agree with you, except then Battlefleet Koronus lumps it in as a Transport, its job, rather than a Cruiser, its physical size, which means that it gets to use Transport rules for its upgrades. I believe this was the consensus, when I brought it up, some time ago, anyway.

Does RT even have limitations or special rules on planetary landing? In the end, all this means is that this RPG and GW's BFG have a different idea of what constitutes a "Transport".

But lol @ Citadel of Skulls

"Looks bigger from the inside".

Orbit to planet remains the great manco, although a couple of Rhinos are not the problem. That is quite easily solved. The problem really starts when we apply a 'realistic' scale, both to things like economy (lifting millions of tonnes into orbit just to load a 'small' Vagabond trader) or war (you won't really conquer a reasonably settled Imperial world with a couple of thousand soldiers and some tanks). So logically, there has to be more, much more.

- There should be mass cargo haulers to lift that bulk produce into near space to the ships/space ports. Think in tens of thousands or hundred of thousand tonnes capability.

- There should be dedicated landing craft, probably carried by larger Warp capable ships, just like our real word LCAC and LSD's. The size will be Warhammeresque. It has to be, as you will need tens of millions of soldiers to conquer an average developed world.

But neither of these have been given much official attention. One will have to do it oneself.

One point that I feel needs to be brought up is that we are all assuming that this thing is being done efficiently at all. I believe it says in the entry for the Universe class that it can take more than a year to onload/offload it's cargo, and that is above a world advanced enough to warrant a visit by one. I have no problem in it taking even a small transport several months to load up on an under developed world, it's probably part of the reason it takes years to make a small circuit ( slow warp drives and lack of a navigator as well).

In the Imperium they use halo barges because they have always used halo barges, efficiency is nothing compared to tradition/dogma.

*note offloading troops is by necessity different, but as has been addressed above, the guard has very large troop transports. As well as in any calculations of space for cargo bays I tend to take about 10-15% of what is calculated to leaving space for gear/walkways/ odd religious cargo patterns etc. to maintain the space and access it. This could also include space for the transports themselves if the ship does not have a dedicated space for them.

Some inefficiency is no problem. After all, the Imperium is the Imperium. But if you wish to keep a Forge World running and Hive Cities fed, you will need a lot more than a paltry 40 tonnes load capacity, otherwise it just stops being believable. For however odd Imperial ways might be, economics are like the laws of nature: they will apply, whether you want it or not and to paint a realistic picture you should take them into account.

That's a good point, as much as I like the idea of such excessive mooring times, scaled to the size of the ship.

That being said, Forge Worlds and Hives are bound to see a lot more than just one ship per year, so if we assume a semi-regular stream of supplies, those giant starships are essentially turned into one giant mobile warehouse that just happens to arrive filled to the brim with goods, and once it's emptied it gets replaced by another giant warehouse.

Have this happen on a bunch of places all over the world, and it might just work out, at least if supplemented by the smaller transports that are capable of planetary landing (plus rationing + local recycling of metals and biological matter).

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of these gigantic ships. I think I'll add this to my interpretation of the setting!

Wow. Thanks for all the feedback. The idea of the truly massive ships (like the universe) hanging in orbit of months at a time is actually quite compelling, I must say. It would really make space elevators incredibly useful. It would seem like Mars had the right idea... Like this .

I've got a follow-up question. Does anyone know if there's some home brew stats for any of the Valkyrie variants floating around anywhere? Or at the very least, what do you guys think the availability would be for a Sky-talon? My players haven't had much use for any specific vehicle stats combat-wise, so I can probably hand waive that, but purchasing one or two is a different matter.

Thanks again!

I've got a follow-up question. Does anyone know if there's some home brew stats for any of the Valkyrie variants floating around anywhere?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/130667-eagle-above-us-imperial-navy-supplement/

Conversations like this are useful to people trying to get a mind's eye snapshot of how things work. Yes, 40k is quite about massive ships and extreme load times, but we have to ask ourselves its effect. We do this to realize fundamentals. How many Halo barges does the ship really have? Should I be able to land all my troops in a single lift, or is two lifts more reasonable? How long will it take to load the cargo. Most of use don't care if the cargo take a month or 3 months. It's when we start doing the math and find out that it's really going to take 177 years that suspension of disbelief flies out the window.

I quite agree. None of us is expecting the real world demands for swift turn around times or the unmanned robotic wharves of container hips. This is WH40K after all, with its dystopian mix of incredibly advanced technology and dark age grit. But as in everything, balance has to be found. For the Imperium might allow some inefficiency to slip in, but not utter waste. Certainly not if there is only War, for War is the ultimate efficiency check of a society. Allowing an Universe class to sit about idlish when a Forge World churning out tanks for the Imperial Guard is running out of steel? As unlogical as letting this massive investment of rich and avericious noble backers go unused if there is a profit to be made. The contract with the Navis Nobilite is allready costing more than shipping the load to an orbital hold!