Incorrect, this is the most 40K mine clearance tool:

That's a jet engine that blasts mines in front of it.

Meh. I'm posting with my kindle so I can't do pics but look on you tube for mine flail. Particularly the Churchill toad.

You mean like this Baron. This it not mine ( ) found it from the Interwebs

Leman Russ 'Crap' Mine Flail

(Seems like can't post those pictures here so had to make a link to the page)

For historical reference, it's the 'Crab' Sherman, one of the specialized tanks known as "Hobart's Funnies". /has seen too many WW2 docs

Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart's_Funnies

Tank shock with that baby running.

Other little details:

Ryza pattern executioners do not suffer overheating. They include extra cooling systems (IA vol 1 1st and 2nd Edition) to prevent this.

Please show me a track guard similar to ablative armor. Most are integral to the tank.

The Leman Russ uses distributed ammo stowage as described by default based on the cut away in IA. It also uses a wet ammo rack. One of my bigger issues with the critical hit system is, as you know, is the huge level of suspension of disbelief some of the results require. Hollywood physics are fun to watch, but make the game feel too silly. The party managed to remake that scene in Barb Wire were the fork lift falls and explodes like an ammo dump going up.

Please show me a track guard similar to ablative armor. Most are integral to the tank.

The Leman Russ uses distributed ammo stowage as described by default based on the cut away in IA. It also uses a wet ammo rack. One of my bigger issues with the critical hit system is, as you know, is the huge level of suspension of disbelief some of the results require. Hollywood physics are fun to watch, but make the game feel too silly. The party managed to remake that scene in Barb Wire were the fork lift falls and explodes like an ammo dump going up.

1. How about every Guard tank? Track Guards are modifications added afterwards. Track Guards may be integral to real life tanks, but this is 40K.

2. The cutaway shows two types of ammunition in racks. It shows nothing even remotely similar to the DASS.

3. Where is the reference to the wet ammo rack exactly?

BYE

Fifth they'd the charm **** Kindle.

1) FW track guards are not ablative armor. They may be aftermarket add-ons but also to into the tank electric system. They are meant to be integral once installed. The ones in the basic kit are sectional, and likely ablative, but also would cause you to lose a track rather than prevent it.

2)I forgot that 40k tanks don't use real tank ammunition but rather impossibly large brass cans. I was looking at it seeing them as hydro jacketed sleeves. Which actually makes it a bit funnier because it takes at least two loaders to load brass that big and a lot more room.

There'a nothing impossibly big about cannons, between the Paris Gun, Gustav and Dora, and the Dardanelles gun.. Also, the basic Leman Russ shell is general purpose explosive. They would likely also have loading assistance built in. Not to say it isn't heavy, though. The given caliber of the LR Battle Cannon is 120mm which is on par with many modern tanks, but it just looks off due to scaling and design. The Vanquisher is capable of firing what's known as Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) in modern terms.

Fifth they'd the charm **** Kindle.

1) FW track guards are not ablative armor. They may be aftermarket add-ons but also to into the tank electric system. They are meant to be integral once installed. The ones in the basic kit are sectional, and likely ablative, but also would cause you to lose a track rather than prevent it.

2)I forgot that 40k tanks don't use real tank ammunition but rather impossibly large brass cans. I was looking at it seeing them as hydro jacketed sleeves. Which actually makes it a bit funnier because it takes at least two loaders to load brass that big and a lot more room.

So it's FW track guards now? I was going off the track guards in the basic kit, 'cause, y'know, they're the ones everyone knows. Those are sectional and are ablative. What they'd do in "real life" seems to remain only a concern of yours.

Hydro-jacketed sleeves? I've said this dozens of times before (and not just to you Baron): You cannot criticise something for not doing something it never intended to do, just as you can't criticise something for doing exactly what it said it was going to do. You're adding all these things to the 40K tanks that, for the most part, are just things that you wish existed in the 40K fluff. That's fine. House rule away, no one's gonna stop you. But do not criticise something for not having "hydro-jacketed sleeves" or "distributed ammunition storage" when those sorts of things are never mentioned and, as far as we know, don't exist or are lost tech from millennia ago.

BYE

There's no real difference between the FW and standard GW track guards in practice. Theoretically, some vehicles might be produced with the guards being integral, others might have them removable. But that's it. And ablative armor is pretty much the default.

I have no idea what this "hydro-jacketed" thing is, But there are some schematics floating around that show the cannon ammo can be stored in various areas like on a real tank. And the turrets on the LR models already have what appear to be blowout panels for when ammunition might explode. I'm going to disagree in part with H.B.M.C in his statement that you're adding fluff things, but only to say that the problems you're creating solutions for are already acknowledged and solved.

1) The track guards are all ablative by default and will with minimal potential for damage, even the sectional ones. The FW full length guards really add just a little more for the Chimera because they're the same casts for the Leman Russ models, which they do cover entirely.

2) 120mm is the stated caliber of the Leman Russ Battle Cannon. For reference, a modern 120mm shell will weigh in at about 50 lbs, sometimes more or less depending on type. Personally, I feel that a lot of things in RP books tend to weigh more than than should by about 30%. Yes, I was bored when I decided to investigate that. In comparison, the Earthshaker's given caliber is 132mm, with 83 lbs shells, which would need at least two people or assistance mechanisms to load easily. On the topic of "distributed ammunition storage," I concur that it would be a necessity (can't have it all go at once!), I feel that would be pretty much built in (as seen in various schematics), just like the sectional blowout panels seen on the rear of LR turrets, which in it self is a form of distributed storage.

EDIT: While I'm thinking about it, the Medusa and Demolisher siege guns are going to be in the 150-200mm range, which will have heavier shells (100+ lbs), but carry less ammo than the LR and Basilisk.

Sectional blowout panels?

BYE

Yessir. The rear of the turret had three panels on top. Those would correspond to three separate reinforced ammo storage compartments, so that if one is hit, in which the ammo inside does ignite and explode, and the force directed up and out of the turret, whilst the other two are intact. Though I would also think most would've seen just external storage compartments. Ammo on tanks would be stored in compartments that can be sealed off in the event of fire. So these three compartment would each have separate doors designed ideally to withstand the explosion behind them. Though, like any design, they can fail critically.

The given caliber of the LR Battle Cannon is 120mm which is on par with many modern tanks, but it just looks off due to scaling and design. The Vanquisher is capable of firing what's known as Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) in modern terms.

According to the cut away they just have them dumped in side bins. No la. To scale she's 200mm give or take, which is what the cut away is based on. Bolters are 75 cal as well, which is about the size of my thumb. You might note the barrels are much bigger than that to scale.

Second I know what apds is. I also know that only one type of vanquisher uses them.

The jacket I was talking about goes around part of the ammo rack and is filed with a mix of water and glycerin and the theory went that it cushioned the shells from shock. Common to the magazine's of late model Shermans, they worked, but provided marginally better protection than the basic ammo rack being moved lower in the tank and in general were phased out.

The reason I call the brass cans impossibly large is that they are. To get the weight down to 50 pounds they use a lot of composites instead of a metal can. That's why they only weigh 50 pounds because the dep uranium is very heavy.

@hbmc as I said I mistook one thing in the diagram for something else. As far as the track guards in the basic kit goes, they sectional because GW wanted to cast one accessory spruce for all its tanks. If you look at them, they're welded to the hull rather than bolted on. The bolts just run around the reinforcing bands. They're not chobham. Ablative armor is designed to be quickly removed and replaced. If the track guards were ablative, the bolts would be where the ablative material attaches to the hull. If it's welded on, you're not replacing it easily.

Yessir. The rear of the turret had three panels on top

You mean these three things at the back of the turret? That's stowage. Plus the ammo isn't even stored in the turret. It's stored in the hull.

BYE

Well, I gave my take on things. -shrug-

Yessir. The rear of the turret had three panels on top

You mean these three things at the back of the turret? That's stowage. Plus the ammo isn't even stored in the turret. It's stored in the hull.

BYE

So you admit the turret exploding makes no sense?

It's a role-playing game set in a science-fantasy universe where violent mushroom people use vehicles that actually drive faster because of the paint colour they choose. It's a game where people with a mutation that allows them to draw power from another dimension summon creatures to steal the souls of genetically enhanced warrior monks that use mini-missile launchers for basic guns whilst clad in massive suits of powered-armour. It is a game, and not a simulation.

And I'm done talking with you Baron...

Rule of Cool and logical, sensible game design are not mutually exclusive. You're using the fact the setting is over the top to excuse plagiarizing from the old vehicle damage cards instead of taking the time to come up with it yourself.

You might call my position moronic that I think that there should more realism, but my suggestions for a better crit table were at least my own material instead of cribbed from an edition of the tabletop game that you hoped no one remembered.

It's a role-playing game set in a science-fantasy universe where violent mushroom people use vehicles that actually drive faster because of the paint colour they choose. It's a game where people with a mutation that allows them to draw power from another dimension summon creatures to steal the souls of genetically enhanced warrior monks that use mini-missile launchers for basic guns whilst clad in massive suits of powered-armour. It is a game, and not a simulation.

And I'm done talking with you Baron...

I really, really, really hate this kind of argument. It's one of my true pet peeves, because I tend to run into people going "lol it's fantasy so who cares if it doesn't make sense" all the time.

Suspension of disbelief and logical consistency within a given scenario or setting does not equal "realism". A setting should strive to be internally consistent and "make sense" based on the parameters it itself has set forth. Want an argument as to why the turret would blow up? Create one, fair enough, it's part of the setting now. In 40k, the whatchamajiggas of the internal cogitator capacitors overload and leak into the plasmatic power supply, boom, the turret explodes.

However, that's not what happens.

Being internally consistent, that a universe "makes sense" by it's own given parameters isn't just a nice side dish, it's something necessary for the suspension of disbelief.

There's a given reason those mushroom people (nevermind that they aren't actually mushrooms) use vehicles and there's a given reason these vehicles go faster when they are painted red. It makes perfect sense, given what we know about the universe and it's key narrative components. There's a reason those "mutants" (nevermind that they aren't mutants, unless they are wyrds) can draw power from another dimension, and there's a reason they can suck the souls of genetically-engineered super-soldiers with mini-missile launchers (nevermind that they aren't actually missiles).

It all makes sense in context.

Creating that context is fine. It is fine creating new lore. It is fine weaving these nuggets into the background, it is fine with coming up with rationales and introducing them into the canon, when it makes sense.

It's not fine to say that internal consistency and setting-dependant logic doesn't matter "because I dunno fantasy maybe lol?".

Game mechanics exists to support the narrative. You shouldn't have to come up with awkward explanations at the table as to why something happens, just because a crit table is rubbish and doesn't make any kind of sense. At the table, when narrating this scenario, what is the viable excuse for the arising situation?

"i dunno the turret explodes because lol orks are green and paint stuff red to make it go faster lol? maybe psyker psyker battlemonk something lol" ?

Please.

Like BaronIveagh said - the rule of cool and sensible game design are not mutually exclusive. Excusing a shoddy narrative with poor mechanics based on the "argument" that "It's fantasy, nothing need to make any sense at all" is terrible .

Amen, Fgdsfg . Like author Fritz Leiber once famously said: "Fantasy doesn't have to be reality -consistent, just self -consistent."

The basic problem is that fantasy, any fantasy, is the same as our world except where noted.

Gravity works, energy is neither created nor destroyed. Unless you're a wizard, pray to the right tree, embrace the power of the warp, etc.

Things exploding just due to rule of Cool is no better than the plague of everything that catches fire inevitably exploding that you yourself decried in dh2s testing. Though is less game breaking, I concede.

Crunch and fluff are separated for a reason. What you consider thematic might be unique to you and not everyone else.

In only war tank rules Leman Russ battle cannon comes with a clip of 12 (?), no coherent rules on how much shells do you carry into battle and is of little use against not only enemy tanks, but APCs as well even when using antitank shells - Leman russ without hull-mounted lascannon is doomed in tank duel.Just as nearly every hostile vehicle would be hard-pressed to take your leman russ out. The turret twists at the same rate for chimera and a baneblade. No info about fuel - how far can you go without refuelling, what is the availability of refuelling. Crew of a tank has a loader, yet no rules are present about him needing to perform actions to reload a gun - at all. Krak missiles which are supposed to be tank crews nightmare are laughably weak compared to tank armor and integrity values. And I can go on and on.

And you are complaining about crit tables?

One can complain about both, no need to choose or play favorites :-)

Well, when I playtested a tank hunter with missile launcher and infinite krak missiles vs tank operator constantly trying to jinx and evade fire without firing back and facing the launcher with front armor I never got to tank critical chart by the time missile launcher finally jammed and exploded, killing the tank hunter.

So you realistically can kill tank hunters by sitting it out.

In only war tank rules Leman Russ battle cannon comes with a clip of 12 (?), no coherent rules on how much shells do you carry into battle and is of little use against not only enemy tanks, but APCs as well even when using antitank shells - Leman russ without hull-mounted lascannon is doomed in tank duel.Just as nearly every hostile vehicle would be hard-pressed to take your leman russ out. The turret twists at the same rate for chimera and a baneblade. No info about fuel - how far can you go without refuelling, what is the availability of refuelling. Crew of a tank has a loader, yet no rules are present about him needing to perform actions to reload a gun - at all. Krak missiles which are supposed to be tank crews nightmare are laughably weak compared to tank armor and integrity values. And I can go on and on.

And you are complaining about crit tables?

Yeah, I've been wrestling with some of the obvious gaps in the tank rules in another thread ; it's definitely an area that needs to be expanded on (-and not just by stating up even more tanks, with no direction on how to use them in an actual campaign).

Yeah... I get that it's supposed to encourage infantry to act smart and flank the tanks, but mostly it means that you need a lascannon or meltagun at all times, just in case a tank shows up. And even then, you have to attack the flank or rear (which is where the lascannon benefits: It profits from decreased armor for longer than the meltagun. The meltagun gets weaker compared to the lascannon when the armor is less than 12 or 24.