[40k] New Marine Vehicle or OMG!!!
Qrab
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote:
> "rzrsedge" kgam...@comcast.net wrote:
> >It's a VDR nightmare I suppose, but this conversion is amazing.
> >
> >http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c39
> >6962 816b& postid=652932
>
> Wow, for a cut-apart&put-back-together, that's pretty cool. I
> wonder what the turret weapons count as. They're much too small to
> be Battlecannon, but they're too big to be Autocannon...
It's clear that they are Mega-Gatling Autocannons with Blast. 2d3 S8
AP3 Blast templates. That'd put some hurtin' on just about anybody.
--
Be seeing you-
Qrab
remove yourhead to reply
P Bowles
>
>http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c396962816b&
>postid=652932
Very nicely done conversion, but looks a little primitive for an SM vehicle
with those large bore cannons. Looks more like something I'd expect to see in
an Elysian Guard army.
Philip Bowles
Erik Setzer
kgam...@comcast.net says...
> It's a VDR nightmare I suppose, but this conversion is amazing.
>
> http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c396962816b&
> postid=652932
Skimmer, gatling autocannon, two twin-linked lascannons, twin-linked
heavy bolter, transport 10 models (with that size, it should be able
to), and armour of something like 13/12/10. Not too bad to figure out.
Now, as far as points go, that's going to be expensive.
-Erik
--
Astral Projections
http://www.inisfail.com/~kaptingavrin
"I tried to sell my soul to the devil, but he asked for a refund."
RGMW FAQ - Read It! http://www.rgmw.org
Anton Svärd
Jack & Co. <c.c.s...@pei.sympatico.ca> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D546E04...@pei.sympatico.ca...
> Do you think he'll sell?
I wouldn't, but you do see some people selling things that must have taken a
huge effort to model and paint, so maybe he will.
> Does anyone know why mortage only has one g?
I would use two.
/Anton
--
Pigs are fer eatin' - not fer sittin' on.
--Durgak da Fat, Orc Big Boss
Jack & Co.
Christopher Krigbaum wrote:
> i wasn't just talking about that particular piece.
Do not top-post.
Besides that, it was a poor example if you're demonstrating talent.
Octavulg
Jack & Co.
"Anton Svärd" wrote:
> Jack & Co. <c.c.s...@pei.sympatico.ca> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D546E04...@pei.sympatico.ca...
>
> > Do you think he'll sell?
>
> I wouldn't, but you do see some people selling things that must have taken a
> huge effort to model and paint, so maybe he will.
Depends on how much he loves it, I guess.
> > Does anyone know why mortage only has one g?
>
> I would use two.
So would I. The English language doesn't.
Octavulg
Insane Ranter
"Erik Setzer" <er...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17bed2ef...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <eOZ49.144148$vg.58...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
> kgam...@comcast.net says...
> > It's a VDR nightmare I suppose, but this conversion is amazing.
> >
> >
http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c396962816b&
> > postid=652932
>
> Skimmer, gatling autocannon, two twin-linked lascannons, twin-linked
> heavy bolter, transport 10 models (with that size, it should be able
> to), and armour of something like 13/12/10. Not too bad to figure out.
> Now, as far as points go, that's going to be expensive.
> -Erik
Transport are you outta your mind again? Your missing a few weapons... why
13/12/10 pull those from where?
George Worroll
wrote:
Hes a moron. That thing is built out of a Land Raider, and is
significantly larger than the base vehicle, I'd argue enough so to
make it a War Machine, especially with that huge turret, and the way
it goes off to the side, its clearly wider than a Land Raider and the
turret looks like its probably taller than one as well. Referring to
my Land Raider, the way the parts are put together that thing looks
longer.
The big question is, are the side things engines or weapon mounts. I
could see either being the case.
>
>
Daniel "I drink for medicinal reasons" Blakemore
> >> heavy bolter, transport 10 models (with that size, it should be able
> >> to), and armour of something like 13/12/10. Not too bad to figure out.
> >> Now, as far as points go, that's going to be expensive.
> >> -Erik
> >Transport are you outta your mind again? Your missing a few weapons...
why
> >13/12/10 pull those from where?
> Hes a moron.
True...but when has that ever stopped him? :(
That thing is built out of a Land Raider, and is
> significantly larger than the base vehicle, I'd argue enough so to
> make it a War Machine, especially with that huge turret, and the way
> it goes off to the side, its clearly wider than a Land Raider and the
> turret looks like its probably taller than one as well. Referring to
> my Land Raider, the way the parts are put together that thing looks
> longer.
I concur.
> The big question is, are the side things engines or weapon mounts. I
> could see either being the case.
I'd hazard a guess at engines, since VDR relies on WYSIWYG a lot for
weaponry...
--
Daniel Blakemore
Chelgames http://www.chelgames.net/
ICQ:14459824 Yahoo IM: mylordkhorne
Grey Knights list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greyknightchapter
Adeptus Astartes - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adeptus_astartes
Battlefleet Gothic - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bf-gothic
40kWebmasters - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/40kwebmasters
X-Com List - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/x-com
Total Annihilation - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/totala
Fallen
"Jack & Co." wrote:
> > > Does anyone know why mortage only has one g?
> >
> > I would use two.
>
> So would I. The English language doesn't.
>
> Octavulg
Is this another 'intellegent' joke?
Fallen.
Jack & Co.
Fallen wrote:
I don't think so. He replied to something of a rhetorical question. I
agreed that yes, he and I, both sane people would spell it that way, but
it seems that the English language doesn't. No insults involved.
Octavulg
Fallen
"Jack & Co." wrote:
I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
I couldn't work out whether I was out of the loop on another
'intelligent-intellegent' type joke. Apparently I wasn't.
Fallen.
Archdeacon
"Fallen" <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D55AECD...@ntlworld.com...
>
>
> "Jack & Co." wrote:
>
> > Fallen wrote:
> >
> > > "Jack & Co." wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know why mortage only has one g?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would use two.
> > > >
> > > > So would I. The English language doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Octavulg
> > >
> > > Is this another 'intellegent' joke?
> >
> > I don't think so. He replied to something of a rhetorical question. I
> > agreed that yes, he and I, both sane people would spell it that way, but
> > it seems that the English language doesn't. No insults involved.
> >
>
> I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
> therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
He's right
> I couldn't work out whether I was out of the loop on another
> 'intelligent-intellegent' type joke. Apparently I wasn't.
Yeah kind of messed my head up too.
Anton Svärd
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D55AECD...@ntlworld.com...
> I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
> therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
I was, and after a closer look all my dictionaries support only that
spelling. Google shows frequent use of both though, and often mixed on the
same site. What's up with that?
Erik Setzer
ctrav...@hotmail.com says...
> >> Skimmer, gatling autocannon, two twin-linked lascannons, twin-linked
> >> heavy bolter, transport 10 models (with that size, it should be able
> >> to), and armour of something like 13/12/10. Not too bad to figure out.
> >> Now, as far as points go, that's going to be expensive.
> >> -Erik
> >
> >Transport are you outta your mind again? Your missing a few weapons... why
> >13/12/10 pull those from where?
>
> Hes a moron. That thing is built out of a Land Raider, and is
> significantly larger than the base vehicle, I'd argue enough so to
> make it a War Machine, especially with that huge turret, and the way
> it goes off to the side, its clearly wider than a Land Raider and the
> turret looks like its probably taller than one as well. Referring to
> my Land Raider, the way the parts are put together that thing looks
> longer.
I know it's at least as big as a Land Raider. A Baneblade doesn't have
as much armour as a Land Raider, and it's a super heavy tank. Skimmers
generally have lighter armour than other tanks, and to me this looked
like a skimmer, so I did a quick run down of what it looked like.
If you think *I* am a moron, and don't believe yourself to be of
diminished thinking capacity, I suggest you refresh your brain about the
VDR, limitations on armour, amount of armour represented on various
vehicles regardless of size of model, etc. Just because you want to
give something the nastiest stats you can find doesn't mean it should
have them.
Mikael
<anton...@telia.com>:
>
>Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D55AECD...@ntlworld.com...
>
>> I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
>> therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
>
>I was, and after a closer look all my dictionaries support only that
>spelling.
It's most definitely spelled with two g:s. No questions about that,
although this thread confused me, too.
> Google shows frequent use of both though, and often mixed on the
>same site. What's up with that?
The fact that people can't spell? =)
Mikael
--
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Have a nice day.
Mikael
<kgam...@comcast.net>:
>It's a VDR nightmare I suppose, but this conversion is amazing.
>
>http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c396962816b&
>postid=652932
Looks OK; not really amazing IMHO. Points value should be nightmarish,
so in game terms it's probably crap.
Mikael
>
>If you think *I* am a moron, and don't believe yourself to be of
>diminished thinking capacity, I suggest you refresh your brain about the
>VDR, limitations on armour, amount of armour represented on various
>vehicles regardless of size of model, etc. Just because you want to
>give something the nastiest stats you can find doesn't mean it should
>have them.
And he wonders why people don't like him.
Anton Svärd
Mikael <mikael...@pp.inet.fi> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3d565029....@news.inet.fi...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 09:12:09 GMT, quoth "Anton Svärd"
> > Google shows frequent use of both though, and often mixed on the
> >same site. What's up with that?
>
> The fact that people can't spell? =)
I thought so too, but there were so many of them... Maybe the companies try
to generate more search hits by including the incorrect spelling.
Jack & Co.
Fallen wrote:
> "Jack & Co." wrote:
>
> > Fallen wrote:
> >
> > > "Jack & Co." wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know why mortage only has one g?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would use two.
> > > >
> > > > So would I. The English language doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Octavulg
> > >
> > > Is this another 'intellegent' joke?
> >
> > I don't think so. He replied to something of a rhetorical question. I
> > agreed that yes, he and I, both sane people would spell it that way, but
> > it seems that the English language doesn't. No insults involved.
> >
>
> I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
> therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
Hmmm... mortage. I'll be. Yer right.
> I couldn't work out whether I was out of the loop on another
> 'intelligent-intellegent' type joke. Apparently I wasn't.
Yer never out of the loop.
Octavulg
Mikael
<c.c.s...@pei.sympatico.ca>:
Cartman, stop saying yer!
Jack & Co.
Mikael wrote:
I was saying yer looooooooooong before Cartman was.
Octavulg
Fallen
"Jack & Co." wrote:
Do you have PROOF?
Fallen. couldn't resist.
Fallen
"Anton Svärd" wrote:
> Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D55AECD...@ntlworld.com...
>
> > I think he was trying to point out that it's 'mortgage' not 'mortage' and
> > therefore 'does' have 2 g's.
>
> I was, and after a closer look all my dictionaries support only that
> spelling. Google shows frequent use of both though, and often mixed on the
> same site. What's up with that?
>
There's lots of stupid people who can't spell. There are also people who
realise there are lots of stupid people who can't spell and design webpages
accordingly.
Add them both up and you get lots of things like bowls/bowels on Ebay etc. :)
Fallen.
Jack & Co.
Fallen wrote:
When did South Park first appear?
First recorded time I said yer-July 9, 1999.
Octavulg
Fallen
"Jack & Co." wrote:
About mid-1997.
Cartman wins!
Fallen.
George Worroll
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 09:56:18 GMT, quoth Erik Setzer <er...@attbi.com>:
>>
>>If you think *I* am a moron, and don't believe yourself to be of
>>diminished thinking capacity, I suggest you refresh your brain about the
>>VDR, limitations on armour, amount of armour represented on various
>>vehicles regardless of size of model, etc. Just because you want to
>>give something the nastiest stats you can find doesn't mean it should
>>have them.
>
>And he wonders why people don't like him.
>
He also obviously hasn't read the VDR. Something that is so obviously
significantly larger than a Land Raider is a War Machine. And, as
this model is based on Land Raider parts for its main body, the armor
value would be the same. War Machines don't have structure points due
to thickness of armor, but due to bulk. Granted, this thing isn't as
large as a Baneblade, so I'd only give it two Strucure points, but its
size is clearly in the War Machine range. That much bigger than the
Land Raider is a war machine, period.
Seriously Erik, would something built out of Land Raider parts and
other obviously heavy armor plates, and have the bulk of a War
Machine, really be more fragile than a Leman Russ? And as far as
knowing the VDR, I've been refering to it constantly for quick shots
at oddball creations to learn it inside out, so that I can create a
program to do alll the calculation work.
And could someone please come up with a way in Agent where I can
killfile responses to people I have killfiled, without affecting the
rest of the thread or other posts by the responders to the killfiled?
I'm open to installing and setting up a news server on this system to
connect to the Optonline server, and use agent to connect to the local
server. Whatever will get Erik to completely dissapear from my news
reader without making anyone else dissapear.
Cheezhankrn
Its a big fat war machine.
Don't warmachine skimmers still have armour limitations like normal
skimmers?
ie max 12 per side IIRC even if it has structure points.
Jack & Co.
Fallen wrote:
First recorded time I saw South Park...
Some time in 2001.
Octavulg wins on the honor system!
Octavulg
Erik Setzer
ctrav...@hotmail.com says...
> >And he wonders why people don't like him.
>
> He also obviously hasn't read the VDR. Something that is so obviously
> significantly larger than a Land Raider is a War Machine. And, as
> this model is based on Land Raider parts for its main body, the armor
> value would be the same. War Machines don't have structure points due
> to thickness of armor, but due to bulk. Granted, this thing isn't as
> large as a Baneblade, so I'd only give it two Strucure points, but its
> size is clearly in the War Machine range. That much bigger than the
> Land Raider is a war machine, period.
>
> Seriously Erik, would something built out of Land Raider parts and
> other obviously heavy armor plates, and have the bulk of a War
> Machine, really be more fragile than a Leman Russ? And as far as
> knowing the VDR, I've been refering to it constantly for quick shots
> at oddball creations to learn it inside out, so that I can create a
> program to do alll the calculation work.
Buy both Imperial Armour books, especially book II. I'd like to refer
you to the Eldar super-heavy vehicles. Especially the flyers, which
only have armour 10 all-round, and some of them are quite large!
Now, have you purchased Imperial Armour II? Good. Then I'll refer you
to page 15. Eldar Scorpion, 12/12/11, *Super Heavy Tank*. Page 17.
Eldar Cobra, 12/12/11, *Super Heavy Tank*.
Now look at Imperial Armour I. Baneblade, Shadowsword, you can find
them easily enough. Armour? 14/13/12. And you admit this thing is
smaller. *And* a skimmer, which is quite important.
Now take a look through your Space Marine codex. Let's look at the
armour values of a few vehicles:
Rhino: 11/11/10
Razorback: 11/11/10
Predator: 13/11/10
Whirlwind: 11/11/10
Vindicator: 13/11/10
Do you know what's similar between these vehicles? That's right,
they're all built on the Rhino chassis. But their armour values aren't
the same. Amazing, that. Sort of like the model in question uses some
Land Raider parts, but flattens the vehicle, and is not, in actuality, a
Land Raider itself. Therefore, it should not be assumed that it is a
Land Raider.
Both are quite sizably larger than a Land Raider, and yet have less
armour. Why? Simple. The Land Raider is so well armoured because it
is a *unique* vehicle with significantly powerful armour, and is also
land-based, allowing for heavier armour. It also has no ports anywhere
(this is noted in the Chapter Approved compilation's article detailing
new rules for vehicles - I don't have it on me to look up the exact page
number right now). Also look up the WD issue in which the Land Raider
was released - US 245. It has plenty of interesting material on the
tank.
A skimmer tank would need less armour to be placed on it, because it
would need to be able to maneuver (sort of like a helicopter, and I
can't think of any of them that can take the punishment a main battle
tank can). Therefore, it would make sense for it to have less armour
value in the game - even assuming it is a super-heavy vehicle. The
engines are all in the rear, and that makes it safe to assume it won't
have as much armour as the front of the vehicle, especially with that
many engines facing backward. The side, as well, looks to have engine
pods with exhaust vents - adequate places for weapons to go in and do a
lot of harm, represented by a reduction in armour. With that large
turret, and the seperation it has from the tank's body (especially when
you realize how large the vehicle is), there's another good spot for
weapons to easily penetrate.
All in all, I can't see this having any more than I suggested, aside
from perhaps raising the rear armour to 11, but I still disagree on the
basis that there's an awful lot of engines back there leaving holes in
the armour. However, I can't get a good look at its rear, where there
may perhaps be plenty of armour on the engines themselves.
I do so hope you take the time to look all of these things up, and come
up with a better counter-argument than "You're an idiot because I say
so, and I are more INTELLEGENT than you!"
And I'd *love* to hear your reasoning for just why the Eldar Phoenix's
armour is what it is in the game, since by all accounts it has far
heavier armour than a Land Raider and many other vehicles, is a super-
heavy vehicle, *and* happens to be larger than most vehicles in the
game.
George Worroll
I just double checked Chapter Approved, and being a skimmer has no
effect at all on maximum armor regardless of size. Flyers, yes, they
have a max AV of 12 even for War Machines, but consider that they have
to be able to get to higher altitudes and greater speeds than a
Skimmer does to be worthy of the flyer classification.
The full aV14 from the Land Raider this was hacked together out of is
feasible IMO due to the rather large and obvious engine mounts on the
thing- its engine mass alone looks like it is close to the size of the
basic Land Raider. My suspicion is the areas in the main body that
Erik would have troops in are taken up by large engines. Ammunition
for the Heavy Bolters and the generators for the Lascannons can take
up most of the space in the forward section, the turret has enough
space for masses of ammunition for the big guns, leaving probably
close to a Land Raider worth of space for the engines.
Maka
> >
> > Wow, for a cut-apart&put-back-together, that's pretty cool. I
> > wonder what the turret weapons count as. They're much too small to
> > be Battlecannon, but they're too big to be Autocannon...
>
>
> It's clear that they are Mega-Gatling Autocannons with Blast. 2d3 S8
> AP3 Blast templates. That'd put some hurtin' on just about anybody.
I vote for 4 Mega Autocannons with optional Blast.
They are not arranged for proper Gatling, and not paired well to be 2
pairs of twin-linked.
Or to keep the points low, 1 Gattling long barreled autocannon.
Whatever the form, the Dragon Wing could take it...
-Maka
Cheezhankrn
"George Worroll" <ctrav...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds5elu46ub4jf99nm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:46:58 +1000, "Cheezhankrn"
> <cheez...@yahoo4spam.com> wrote:
>
> >Major snipping cos i can't be bothered trimming out the vitriol.
> >
> >Its a big fat war machine.
> >Don't warmachine skimmers still have armour limitations like normal
> >skimmers?
> >ie max 12 per side IIRC even if it has structure points.
> >
>
> I just double checked Chapter Approved, and being a skimmer has no
> effect at all on maximum armor regardless of size. Flyers, yes,
oh yeah thats what I was thinking of.
> The full aV14 from the Land Raider this was hacked together out of is
> feasible IMO due to the rather large and obvious engine mounts on the
> thing- its engine mass alone looks like it is close to the size of the
> basic Land Raider. My suspicion is the areas in the main body that
> Erik would have troops in are taken up by large engines.
I just don't think it looks like a transport. A big flying tank is the
impression I get.
Flys ahead of the landing force and pours fire everywhere to clear the area
for the transports to drop off.
So given that utterly pulled out of my butt role for the machine lots of
armour makes sense.
Erik Setzer
cheez...@yahoo4spam.com says...
> > The full aV14 from the Land Raider this was hacked together out of is
> > feasible IMO due to the rather large and obvious engine mounts on the
> > thing- its engine mass alone looks like it is close to the size of the
> > basic Land Raider. My suspicion is the areas in the main body that
> > Erik would have troops in are taken up by large engines.
>
> I just don't think it looks like a transport. A big flying tank is the
> impression I get.
> Flys ahead of the landing force and pours fire everywhere to clear the area
> for the transports to drop off.
> So given that utterly pulled out of my butt role for the machine lots of
> armour makes sense.
It's very large, and has two hatches on the side for entrance/exit.
Therefore I thought it might be able to carry troops.
And, using George's ideas, it's built using Land Raider parts, shouldn't
that mean it gets big transport capability?
But, back to my points, I just thought it'd be able to carry a squad
because it looks quite large, has hatches to enter and exit, and it
seems to make sense having a large vehicle that skims along and puts out
troops, laying down a ton of covering fire.
Cheezhankrn
"Erik Setzer" <er...@attbi.com> wrote in message
http://forums.portent.net/attachment.php?s=986e72425bcf6245b7592c396962816b&
postid=652932
>
> > > The full aV14 from the Land Raider this was hacked together out of is
> > > feasible IMO due to the rather large and obvious engine mounts on the
> > > thing- its engine mass alone looks like it is close to the size of the
> > > basic Land Raider. My suspicion is the areas in the main body that
> > > Erik would have troops in are taken up by large engines.
> >
> > I just don't think it looks like a transport. A big flying tank is the
> > impression I get.
> > Flys ahead of the landing force and pours fire everywhere to clear the
area
> > for the transports to drop off.
> > So given that utterly pulled out of my butt role for the machine lots of
> > armour makes sense.
>
> It's very large, and has two hatches on the side for entrance/exit.
> Therefore I thought it might be able to carry troops.
>
> And, using George's ideas, it's built using Land Raider parts, shouldn't
> that mean it gets big transport capability?
Like the way a predator built on the rhino chassis can? :-)
>
> But, back to my points, I just thought it'd be able to carry a squad
> because it looks quite large, has hatches to enter and exit, and it
> seems to make sense having a large vehicle that skims along and puts out
> troops, laying down a ton of covering fire.
Nah. look at those hatchs, they're pretty tiny and just in front of the
engine intakes.
I sure wouldn't want to be jumping out of those just as the thing settles
down. You'd squeeze out the door and be pulled over by the air blast.
Plus it dosn't seem to have room to fit the guys. Its pretty big but the
raider sized back section I expect would be full with cannon ammo, the
turret ring and motors, the inside bits and fuel for those engine sponsons.
The front bit looks full of lascannon generators.
Of course I know APCs have shit-all room inside for the poor long suffering
grunts but maybe you'd drop off a recon squad or something but not a combat
squad.
I wonder how much room there is in a merkava (SP? that israeli MBT with
transport ability)
Is it possible to get to the forum thread from the attachment? I'd like to
see what was said about it from 'home'.
Qrab
M_st...@hotmail.com (Maka) wrote:
The VDR rules make no mention of how the barrels should be layed out,
only that there be four or more gun barrels. I think one of the early
machine guns had barrels layed out in a horizontal fashion.
> Whatever the form, the Dragon Wing could take it...
As could the Iron Wing.
--
Be seeing you-
Qrab
remove yourhead to reply
Erik Setzer
cheez...@yahoo4spam.com says...
> > And, using George's ideas, it's built using Land Raider parts, shouldn't
> > that mean it gets big transport capability?
>
> Like the way a predator built on the rhino chassis can? :-)
It really depends on how you build the Predator. If you build external
mountings for the ammunition, attached directly to the weapons, you
could actually VDR a vehicle with transport capacity.
> > But, back to my points, I just thought it'd be able to carry a squad
> > because it looks quite large, has hatches to enter and exit, and it
> > seems to make sense having a large vehicle that skims along and puts out
> > troops, laying down a ton of covering fire.
>
> Nah. look at those hatchs, they're pretty tiny and just in front of the
> engine intakes.
> I sure wouldn't want to be jumping out of those just as the thing settles
> down. You'd squeeze out the door and be pulled over by the air blast.
I'd think there'd be safety measures in place, just like the Eldar have
when jumping out right between their engines. :P
The hatches are from a Land Raider, so they're not *that* "tiny".
> Plus it dosn't seem to have room to fit the guys. Its pretty big but the
> raider sized back section I expect would be full with cannon ammo, the
> turret ring and motors, the inside bits and fuel for those engine sponsons.
> The front bit looks full of lascannon generators.
> Of course I know APCs have shit-all room inside for the poor long suffering
> grunts but maybe you'd drop off a recon squad or something but not a combat
> squad.
> I wonder how much room there is in a merkava (SP? that israeli MBT with
> transport ability)
Like I said, I took the turret to have autocannons, which wouldn't
require the greatest amount of space for ammo. Lascannon generators can
be modified to create more inside space. So it *is* possible to have
some space inside for transport. But, like I said, YMMV - the VDR is
open to whatever interpretations you want.
> Is it possible to get to the forum thread from the attachment? I'd like to
> see what was said about it from 'home'.
I'd like to know, too. I'm trying to look it up.
Erik Setzer
> Is it possible to get to the forum thread from the attachment? I'd like to
> see what was said about it from 'home'.
http://forums.portent.net/showthread.php?s=
14957c74266cd6a18cc3fa84bc217f41&threadid=134252881
Not much about its abilities, just a discussion on whether a new medium
SM tank is coming, this gets posted after a link to some SM grav-tank
conversions are posted, and people go off on a tangent about whether the
AdMech would make something like this.
HurroTisRobbo
> mountings for the ammunition, attached directly to the weapons, you
> could actually VDR a vehicle with transport capacity.
I think it might be reasonable to then lower the armour values on the sides,
or something to compensate: what happens if someone shoots the ammo boxes,
eh? Boom?
George Worroll
I wouldn't lower the armor in that case. I would make it open topped-
a glancing hit can be extremely devastating if it hits a large ammo
bin, even if its a lascannon generator, the short circuit that could
result could turn the PRedator into an oven very quickly. Even though
passengers would be in power armor, and the vehicle technically is
fully armored- making it open topped IMO would be the best way to
represent the extra risk of having externally mounted ammunition.
Maka
> The VDR rules make no mention of how the barrels should be layed out,
> only that there be four or more gun barrels. I think one of the early
> machine guns had barrels layed out in a horizontal fashion.
>
> > Whatever the form, the Dragon Wing could take it...
>
> As could the Iron Wing.
Actually, they do, indirectly. The most important rule for VDR is it
must look exactly like what it does. You must have 4 barrels for
gatling, but to have it Look like a gatling, they cannot be all in a
line.
Early machine guns may have had all the barrels layed out in a
horizontal fashion, but early machine guns where not gatling guns.
-Maka
RT Maitreya
> Actually, they do, indirectly. The most important rule for VDR is it
> must look exactly like what it does. You must have 4 barrels for
> gatling, but to have it Look like a gatling, they cannot be all in a
> Early machine guns may have had all the barrels layed out in a
> horizontal fashion, but early machine guns where not gatling guns.
I disagree with your sentiment.
Just because something "acts" like a gatling weapon
doesn't mean it has to have 16 rotating barrels, etc.
Almost all high-ROF weapons made before Gatling were
linear devices. Many still are.
RTM
Maka
> Just because something "acts" like a gatling weapon
> doesn't mean it has to have 16 rotating barrels, etc.
> Almost all high-ROF weapons made before Gatling were
> linear devices. Many still are.
>
> RTM
Name one Movie that shows a Gatling gun as you described it.
-Maka
"Can't argue with TV training"
John Hwang
By definition, "Gatling" is a cranked rotary weapon; I doubt that you'll find
movie imagery of a linear device.
That said, there are plenty of linear (and alternate geometry) weapons which
have high ROF as RTM describes. The best examples are rocket systems of
various types. Katyusha "Stalin Organs", for example.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
David Gausebeck
>>> Just because something "acts" like a gatling weapon
>>> doesn't mean it has to have 16 rotating barrels, etc.
>>> Almost all high-ROF weapons made before Gatling were
>>> linear devices. Many still are.
>>
>>described it.
>
>By definition, "Gatling" is a cranked rotary weapon; I doubt that you'll find
>movie imagery of a linear device.
>
>That said, there are plenty of linear (and alternate geometry) weapons which
>have high ROF as RTM describes. The best examples are rocket systems of
>various types. Katyusha "Stalin Organs", for example.
Those are usually for single salvos, though, with significant reload
times in between. I wouldn't call a pepperbox pistol a gatling gun.
The idea of a gatling gun is to use multiple barrels to *sustain* a
high rate of fire (by reducing overheating of barrels, and by allowing
rounds to be processed in parallel), not to allow single, large
salvos.
Nevertheless, If you had 4 autocannon lined up in a row, with 4
separate loading systems, etc., I don't see why it couldn't all count
as a gatling weapon for VDR.
-Dave
John Hwang
>>>> I disagree with your sentiment.
>>>> Just because something "acts" like a gatling weapon
>>>> doesn't mean it has to have 16 rotating barrels, etc.
>>>> Almost all high-ROF weapons made before Gatling were
>>>> linear devices. Many still are.
>>>
>>>Name one Movie that shows a Gatling gun as you
>>>described it.
>>
>>By definition, "Gatling" is a cranked rotary weapon; I doubt that you'll
>>find movie imagery of a linear device.
>>
>>That said, there are plenty of linear (and alternate geometry) weapons which
>>have high ROF as RTM describes. The best examples are rocket systems of
>>various types. Katyusha "Stalin Organs", for example.
>
>Those are usually for single salvos, though, with significant reload
>times in between. I wouldn't call a pepperbox pistol a gatling gun.
One doesn't *have* to blow the entire wad at once. Tho usually, it's good to
do so for maximum impact.
The things I'm imagining are string or multi-string launchers, so it the weapon
fires sequentially for a continuous ROF, not simultaneously in a single big
shot. This keeps the the projectiles from hitting each other mid-flight.
>The idea of a gatling gun is to use multiple barrels to *sustain* a
>high rate of fire (by reducing overheating of barrels, and by allowing
>rounds to be processed in parallel), not to allow single, large
>salvos.
>
>Nevertheless, If you had 4 autocannon lined up in a row, with 4
>separate loading systems, etc., I don't see why it couldn't all count
>as a gatling weapon for VDR.
Yup.
Mr.eXtremeOne
"RT Maitreya" <hy...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:3D5C55B0...@speakeasy.org...
>
Still giving a Godzilla a rim job?
heh...........
RT Maitreya
> Still giving a Godzilla a rim job?
'Bot NARP. Can't even make up relevant insults, they
just crawl through a program to fabricate new combinations
of "poopy" and "head".
*yawn*
RTM