Jump to content



Photo

Actual Tank-Based Campaigns...?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Santiago

Santiago

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:18 AM

 

How about allowing the non-Operator pc to take the Gunner Order as an Elite advance?

That would make certain things a lot easier, but rather devalues operators I fear.

 

You could give the Operators the advance for free or give them a Veteran Comrade or something simular...



#22 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,007 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:28 AM

I wasn't indicating it was a bad idea ;)



#23 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:20 PM

As I suggested earlier (And use in my games). If the squad is part of a tank regiment than all of the comrades (in the tank) use the operator comrade rules. I don't feel this devalues the Operator, It just reflects the reality that they are living and working in a tank! The balance is when you are outside the vehicle! Those same comrades are not likely as helpful as the standard ones would be in a small arms firefight! (Nor would your heavy gunner be carrying an actual heavy weapon! But that's a different story!)

 

As to crewing a Leman Russ without Sponsons, That simply reduces the number of PC's from three to two. The Tank commander w/ driver comrade and the Main gunner w/loader Comrade.

 

I don't think I would want the tech priest crewing anything smaller than a baneblade since that's not how they normally operate in 40k. Engineseers normally roam the battlefield (That's why they wear powered armor in TT) and tend to the wounded machine spirits of their charges, (which would probably be a Tank squadron)


Edited by Radwraith, 08 June 2014 - 12:21 PM.


#24 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:08 PM

I don't think I would want the tech priest crewing anything smaller than a baneblade since that's not how they normally operate in 40k. Engineseers normally roam the battlefield (That's why they wear powered armor in TT) and tend to the wounded machine spirits of their charges, (which would probably be a Tank squadron)

 

True, but Only War doesn't represent normal Imperial Guard units (witness individual Stormtroopers and Abhumans attached to basic infantry units, even though they are always fielded in dedicated units of their own kind in the lore). In any RPG, you have to come up with a way to give the PCs a variety of options- which sometimes results in less-than-perfect-to-canon groups, and the descrepancies hand-waved away by saying the PC's group is the exception and not the rule. That was my logic in including an Enginseer in my 'optimal' crew build, and it would be explained by saying that this tank will be employed for special missions, and not just used as another vehicle in a column- hence a special AdMech representative stationed aboard.


Edited by Adeptus-B, 08 June 2014 - 11:10 PM.


#25 Santiago

Santiago

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:26 AM

That is why I donot allow for Support specialists as PC's.
I want to run OW, not a collage of strange characters.


  • Tenebrae likes this

#26 Magellan

Magellan

    Member

  • Members
  • 520 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:59 AM

No one seems to have mentioned Sven Hassel here. Legion of the Damned, Wheels of Terror and so on are all about a tank crew full of interesting characters having "adventures" in the grim darkness of the second world war. His books have been my greatest inspiration for OW in general.

 

Imagine playing a group of penal legionnaires with a tank all their own, sneaking away from the main force to go rob a bank - in a leman russ.


  • Brother Anselm likes this

I am the latest model of a Fabricator-General
My body isn't nearly as much animal as mineral
My learnedness is legend; my accomplishments historical
For hereteks and aliens my hatred's categorical


#27 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 10:41 AM

That is why I donot allow for Support specialists as PC's.
I want to run OW, not a collage of strange characters.

I'm going to risk this, even though I shouldn't, and hope that this doesn't turn into an argument, but have you played Deathwatch, and do you disallow specialists there, too? Chaplains, Librarians, and the like are only HQ, so they don't often run with "regular" Space Marines, either. A beatstick HQ Ind Char CAN attach himself to the Tac Squad, but probably won't, and then the IG equivalents are the same ability. Most SM armies don't field "________-in-training" Libbies, Chaps, Apothecaries, or senior Techmarines, just like IG doesn't train fledgling Psykers, Priests, or Commies.

 

And now I'm done, so yay ;) If I were playing, and my GM said NO Psyker...er SPECIALISTS, I could still certainly come up with several ideas to play, if not my preferred option (special snowflake syndrome-patient), and Hammer's advanced options, such as Commander and MoO are both very nice, so it does work; it just sort of feels like a limited 40K game without them, especially when the others, each as thinking it follows fluff it doesn't, seems to have a decent integration of specialists. maybe have to stick to Rogue Trader, where EVERYONE is a special snowflake. ;)

 

****

 

If I were playing a dedicated Tank campaign, I'd fail; even there I'd try to have a split of them, the tank, and some other transport vehicle, so some people are outside the Leman, but still able to keep up, maybe in a Tauros, with bikes, or Rough Riders, so some infantry is able to guard their steel behemoth, and have something to do, while not all being one of twoish character types. Not saying it's right, or even easily doable, but I'd hate to have a party wedged into a Punisher, just shooting bad guys with a PGC.


  • velocity83 likes this

#28 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 11:01 AM

For the record, Radwraith made some very useful suggestions about using tanks in a different thread. Check out the 12th post in this thread.

 

-And thanks for the heads-up about Sven Hassel, Magellan. I'll definitely look those books up!


Edited by Adeptus-B, 11 June 2014 - 11:04 AM.


#29 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 01:52 AM

Thanks for the shout out Adeptus-B!  Glad it helped!

 

As to not allowing specialists? I don't think I'd go THAT far! I just don't think I'd want one crewing the tank! Especially a MBT like the Leman russ! It would certainly make sense for a Commissar to ride along in some games, (preferably in a tank with an odd-numbered crew like a Chimera!) and I would say the Tank based game is one of the few places that a Tech priest would have a regular roll! (In an odd sort of way he kinda replaces the medic!) The thing is, An Enginseer loses a lot of his efficacy while trapped inside a tank. He certainly can't repair much of anything from there! If my game were going to feature an Engineseer, I would leave him outside the tank! I would hope that he would be the odd player in the game. (IE; If I were running a game with the above mentioned Leman Russ, I would hope for 4 players so one could run the tech priest.)I would of course compensate the player with some neat toys (Powered armor comes to mind!) and generally speaking, Bad guys aren't going to target the clanky little red flag when there are tanks flinging death and mayhem all over the place! 



#30 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:59 AM

A Commissar could easily replace a Tank Commander.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#31 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:57 PM

A Commissar could easily replace a Tank Commander.

BYE

Sure, but in game terms a Commisar has no comrade. I realise that this is hardly a deal breaker, it just forces the Gm to do a little more work. I would assign a faceless and relatively non-productive NPC as the loader, (No comrade abilities). but that's just me!



#32 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 04:20 AM

Whether you need the Comrade or not depends on the layout of the tank. You need two PC's for the turret, and one Comrade to act as loader (so that can be a Commissar + Operator w/Comrade... and I'd imagine that there aren't many players out there who want to play the turret's loader). Then the driver is another Operator, and that gives them another Comrade who care fire the front gun when the driver is doing other things. If there are no sponsons, and that does happen, then you don't need anyone else. And if there are sponsons, then that's one more person who can control any of the two sponsons and the front gun, and another comrade to control whatever that final crewman isn't.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#33 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,918 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 06:05 AM

If you go by Shield of Humanity's rules for Ogryn/Ratling World characters, you could make an armoured regiment crewed by abhumans. Really silly, but it depends on how serious you want your 40K I guess.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#34 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:57 PM

Whether you need the Comrade or not depends on the layout of the tank. You need two PC's for the turret, and one Comrade to act as loader (so that can be a Commissar + Operator w/Comrade... and I'd imagine that there aren't many players out there who want to play the turret's loader). Then the driver is another Operator, and that gives them another Comrade who care fire the front gun when the driver is doing other things. If there are no sponsons, and that does happen, then you don't need anyone else. And if there are sponsons, then that's one more person who can control any of the two sponsons and the front gun, and another comrade to control whatever that final crewman isn't.

BYE

???...Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly! Commander/Commissar + Main turret gunner in turret. Driver + loader(Comrade) in hull. Sponson gunner + Sponson gunner(Comrade) in sponsons. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, sure, that could work. It just means you drop one comrade! I didn't mean it couldn't be done! I was actually defending the idea that specialists would have a place in the game! My normal layout for a tank crew is very similar but an actual tank commander (Typically an operator or Sergeant) is in that role and his comrade serves as loader. Main gunner is PC while sponson gunner is comrade. Driver is operator while comrade is other sponson gunner.  



#35 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:38 PM

 

Whether you need the Comrade or not depends on the layout of the tank. You need two PC's for the turret, and one Comrade to act as loader (so that can be a Commissar + Operator w/Comrade... and I'd imagine that there aren't many players out there who want to play the turret's loader). Then the driver is another Operator, and that gives them another Comrade who care fire the front gun when the driver is doing other things. If there are no sponsons, and that does happen, then you don't need anyone else. And if there are sponsons, then that's one more person who can control any of the two sponsons and the front gun, and another comrade to control whatever that final crewman isn't.

 

???...Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly! Commander/Commissar + Main turret gunner in turret. Driver + loader(Comrade) in hull. Sponson gunner + Sponson gunner(Comrade) in sponsons. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, sure, that could work. It just means you drop one comrade! I didn't mean it couldn't be done! I was actually defending the idea that specialists would have a place in the game! My normal layout for a tank crew is very similar but an actual tank commander (Typically an operator or Sergeant) is in that role and his comrade serves as loader. Main gunner is PC while sponson gunner is comrade. Driver is operator while comrade is other sponson gunner.  

 

If you are going with no sponsons and a Commissar as Commander, then three players would be ideal: Operator (Driver)+Comrade (Lascannon gunner), Heavy Gunner (battlecannon)+Comrade (loader), and Commissar (commander)- who doesn't come with a Comrade. If you swap out the Commissar for a Sergeant, rather than dumping his Comrade you could have him be the tank's Vox operator (a role that a Comrade will have to do 'double-duty' on in my proposed build).

 

That said, it seems like losing sponsons would really reduce the fun of tank combat.


Edited by Adeptus-B, 16 June 2014 - 01:39 PM.


#36 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:43 AM

 

 

If you are going with no sponsons and a Commissar as Commander, then three players would be ideal: Operator (Driver)+Comrade (Lascannon gunner), Heavy Gunner (battlecannon)+Comrade (loader), and Commissar (commander)- who doesn't come with a Comrade. If you swap out the Commissar for a Sergeant, rather than dumping his Comrade you could have him be the tank's Vox operator (a role that a Comrade will have to do 'double-duty' on in my proposed build).

 

That said, it seems like losing sponsons would really reduce the fun of tank combat.

 

Exactly!  :)



#37 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    The Empire Needs You!

  • Members
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:56 AM

We started, but didn't get far - more due to availability than anything. The players were the crew of a Vanquisher attached to a tank company and reporting up to the captain. (making them veteran-ish specialists, hence occasionally detached as fire support, ambushers, artillery spotters, etc).

 

It was a four-player team. 

  • Tank Commander - Sergeant
  • Driver - Operator, Sponson Gunner Comrade on Port Heavy Bolter
  • Lascannon Gunner - Operator, Sponson Gunner Comrade on Starboard Heavy Bolter
  • Turret Gunner - Heavy Gunner, Loader Comrade

It worked pretty well. The sergeant didn't have a comrade to direct but was busy directing everyone else plus manning the pintle heavy stubber, so it all worked out fine.



#38 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:42 AM

It worked pretty well. The sergeant didn't have a comrade to direct but was busy directing everyone else plus manning the pintle heavy stubber, so it all worked out fine.

 

Cool. How many tank combats did you play out? And did your players enjoy their roles within tank combat, limitations and all?



#39 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 865 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:58 PM

We started, but didn't get far - more due to availability than anything. The players were the crew of a Vanquisher attached to a tank company and reporting up to the captain. (making them veteran-ish specialists, hence occasionally detached as fire support, ambushers, artillery spotters, etc).

 

It was a four-player team. 

  • Tank Commander - Sergeant
  • Driver - Operator, Sponson Gunner Comrade on Port Heavy Bolter
  • Lascannon Gunner - Operator, Sponson Gunner Comrade on Starboard Heavy Bolter
  • Turret Gunner - Heavy Gunner, Loader Comrade

It worked pretty well. The sergeant didn't have a comrade to direct but was busy directing everyone else plus manning the pintle heavy stubber, so it all worked out fine.

Nice! Did you by chance use the combat guidelines I posted earlier? I'm curious to see if it worked for you!



#40 Cail

Cail

    Member

  • Members
  • 394 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:16 PM

No one seems to have mentioned Sven Hassel here. Legion of the Damned, Wheels of Terror and so on are all about a tank crew full of interesting characters having "adventures" in the grim darkness of the second world war. His books have been my greatest inspiration for OW in general.

 

Imagine playing a group of penal legionnaires with a tank all their own, sneaking away from the main force to go rob a bank - in a leman russ.

Isn't that just Kelly's Heroes in space?


  • Intellect is the Understanding of Knowledge.
  • Sentience is the Basest Form of Intellect.
  • Understanding is the True Path to Comprehension.
  • Comprehension is the Key to all Things

 





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS