• Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 416

Re: The Army Builder Question Thread!

schuppiluliumas wrote:

Thanks for your fast reply

Don't know if that was fast particularly, as I happen to be in Finland and my clock's a few hours ahead of most people on this forum. But you're welcome anyway wink

Designing them as a vehicle should be no problem because it seems to be possible to design Size 3-vehicles ( so maybe I should even design them as very small AFVs (maybe M6,AR-1; DC 2 or 3; Damage chart: Exposed Weaponry or Weak Superstructure))---maybe this approach is too gamey

Although the vehicle section rules unfortunately aren't quite crystal clear on the SZ issue, I think the vehicles should always be at least SZ=4 as "targets of size classes 1-3 are referred to as infantry targets" (pg. 11). There is however no specific SZ class limitations associated with any of the vehicle types, so you could have a SZ=4 AFV or a SZ=6 Light Vehicle, for example.

Probably you should wait for Demian to clear the vehicle SZ issue before proceeding.

Now- how about designing a mixed PI/ SI squad with the SI units unable to move on their own

Don't suppose there's anything wrong with that, as you want to bend the rules voluntarily in the direction where you are in fact at a disadvantage. I've avoided using house rules or even rules de facto OKd by Demian but not yet available outside of this forum, but that's just me of course.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: The Army Builder Question Thread!

Here's a suggestion: make it SZ3 PI, maybe use the Integral Weaponry rule if you need to mix weaponry, but make it vulnerable to side/rear attacks. I'm pretty sure you can do that; that reflects the vunerable gunner. Then make it a Hero and give it the Covering Computer augmentation to represent the fact that the crewman and the bot are covering each other's backs. This also means it can move independently of any squad it might be in, which is a good thing for such a weapons platform.

Otherwise, maybe just make it a Crew Served Weapon? That allows it to mount weapons otherwise only legal for Vehicles.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 261

Re: The Army Builder Question Thread!

As wreckage and tnjrp suggest, either crew-served or the integral weaponry rule might work well.

I go back and forth on SZ and vehicles.  The main reason I split them into size categories was for unit targeting purposes, but perhaps that issue should take a backseat to the ability to design small hardpoint targets...heck, one can easily imagine a size 2 robot that would be tough enough to count as a vehicle in terms of being resistant to most small arms fire.

Thoughts?

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: The Army Builder Question Thread!

That would work well for Eldar Wraithguard and all bikes for 40K under the old 3rd ed rules. Might also be good for t-1000 vs 90's SWAT smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: The Army Builder Question Thread!

Maybe the targetting rules would then need to allow ignoring vehicles for infantry and vice-versa?