Thursday, 15 January 2009

079 1st Draft Wyvern Rules

Comments will be most welcome!

Here at last are my ideas for rules for my Wyvern variant. I've been thinking and tweaking and tweaking and thinking, and this is what I've come up with. I've never played a 'pick-up' game, so agreeing rules for cool stuff beforehand isn't usually a problem. Not that I get to play much.

That said, I like Koloth's ideas (see 'comments', 075) for 'counts as' rules...

Points: 120
Stats as Chimera
Transport: 6 troops

Hull-mounted heavy bolter; turret-mounted Wyvern missile launcher; P-M heavy stubber (turret) - plus any additional wargear from the IG vehicle armoury.

-- A command squad may fire grenade launchers from the two ports for free.*
-- The wyvern missile launcher (see below) may be upgraded to an AA mount for 15pts, losing its barrage ability.

-- Wyvern missile launcher. This acts exactly as a missile launcher, but it may opt to fire twice in a turn (counting as a single weapon). It may fire only eight missiles in a game. It is not twin-linked.
-- Barrage. If firing frag missiles, the launcher's targetry systems enable it to engage without line of sight. This works as a barrage weapon, using the stats below.**
* This is simply to reward me(!) for the work I'm putting in to magnetising some grenade launchers for the lasgun ports! It's free because I hardly ever keep my troops in their rides for long, they could only fire one at a time anyway, and the wyvern's purpose is to provide medium-range support (i.e. further than 24").
** Obviously, whilst firing barrage shots, the wyvern may not fire any other weapons (it won't be able to target the same unit). Also, barrage counts as 'pinning' too.

-- I like the model and I want to be able to field it;
-- It has only 8 discreet shots per game - assuming it lives long enough;
-- It's only BS3;
-- Compare prices: a basilisk (very powerful long range ordnance) = 100/125 pts. A manticore (tremendously powerful but with only four shots) = only 145pts. A medusa (with 2xT-L long-barrelled AA autocannon) = 200pts, but it's a gleaming anti-aircraft unit, and overpriced anyway. Therefore, reduced shots = reduced points cost;
-- I've taken a chimera, less 6 troops' transport capacity; less 6 lasguns, and added points 30pts for two missile launchers plus extra points for the stubber (they're overpriced anyway) and its (limited) indirect fire capability.

Incidentally, the indirect fire capability was originally going to be the same as on the FW support sentinel, but (a) I only have the trial rules, and (b) I don't know how that'd work in 5th. Plus, indirect krak missiles seem maybe a little too powerful for Guard...
Any thoughts, please? - Good or ill.
- Drax.


  1. I like your idea. The point cost/stats of the unit seem very balanced; it is an average light tank with a few minor special rules. I think that its transport capacity of 6 suits only a command squad or a unit of karskin; but giving to those "upgraded" units an "upgraded" transport souds great.

  2. This is a nice idea to represent your conversion.
    However, I would do differently and think in two different ways of playing it.
    Firstly, let's start from the basic weapon itself, a missile launcher. Every heavy weapon team with ML can shoot every turn, so why not a Wyvern? It has storage capability and fuel to make it move. Frankly, I think of your Wyvern as a WWII Katyusha except that you can choose between one and two missiles to be launched.
    Secondly, on the barrage side, once again I would think of the Katyusha : two frag missiles shot by a heavy weapon team is not impressive enough to make the target duck or suffer pining. So would it be with the Wyvern with your proposed rules. I would rather say that when you want to fire a barrage, the Wyvern shoots all its remaining missiles in a devastating, deafening rain of fire and shrapnel, leaving its turret-mounted Wyvern missile launcher empty for the remaining turns. I would recommend firing only frag missiles for barrage purpose because the Wyvern ML is no Earthshaker canon. Why not using the old Thudd-gun template from v2 Dark Millennium? :p Your ** comment is also obvious to me ;)
    Finally, I do like the AA capability, therefore making it flexible for either Apocalypse or Standard games, more especially when this model came out of your brain :)
    I like your model and I hope you will come out with a set of rules that will primarily suit your way of seeing/playing it, this is all that matters ! :)

  3. I like the idea of the Wyvern, and most of the rules work fine. The only thing Im not so sure about is having both frag and krak missiles available, especially as it has a limited number of shots per game. There is something to be said for flexibility, but thats not a trait I normally associate with the Imperial Guard.

  4. Ok, hang on a whirlwind is 85 pts which is way cheaper and can fire either a S5 AP4 or a S4 AP5 ignores cover ordinance barrage. However it has worse armour. Your anti tank option would add maybe 20 points for direct and indirect fire plus features (like carrying capacity, Heavy bolter and heavy stubber) - yeah you're on the money. Costs about the same as a bassie, but with two smaller blast templates instead of a big S9 one...

    I like it!

  5. Colonel Krieg said...
    "Every heavy weapon team with ML can shoot every turn, so why not a Wyvern? It has storage capability and fuel to make it move."
    I agree here, but see most of it taken up if carrying troops. So, I recommend the 8 max if you elect to carry troops, but a higher number if you do not.

    I'm afraid I am not familiar with Whirlwind rules. Do they have a max number of missiles? If not, why the limitation here?

  6. I would say only limit the number of shots if it is carrying troops, something like this:

    Limited storage: Because the tank only has so much room if you elect for it to be possible to carry troops it may only use 8 missiles if you elect for it to be unable to carrry troops it can fire all it likes.

  7. Wow - thanks, All.

    @ Krieg: I like where you're going with the Katyusha (thanks!) but I see it as both a little more sophisticated and less effective: like it's from some arcane STC plans that they found but don't quite know how to use!

    @ Ryan - I totally see your point and I was wondering about the suspension of disbelief required, but I think I'm cool with it. There are lots of similar examples in the game. I suppose one option might be for EITHER a krak-only version on an AA mount OR a frag-only version with the barrage option.

    If I went frag-only with it, I'd have to make the frag more powerful though, as one of my main design specifications was to give my light vehicles some anti-tank capability. Hmm...

    @ suneokun: Thanks muchly for the whirlwing info! Is it still like the last incarnation where you had to pick your ammo before the game started and stick to it?

    @ 3BAC: Great point about the whirwind's capacity - I know one model variant of it has only four missiles! Suneokun - any clues here?

    @ Gamers World: Not a bad idea, mate - like 3BAC - though it is intended to function as a transport with fire support.

    Thanks, guys!

    - D.

  8. When I said about making "the frag more powerful" - I didn't mean much more powerful, I meant slightly more powerful: to make it better in the anti-personnel role in lieu of its intended anti-tank capability.

    - D.

  9. I didnt even consider the Whirlwind when looking at this, now I feel ashamed. I keep forgetting that 40k is less reality or model based then I prefer! ;)

    After looking at it, and obvious examples in other armies, Id have no problem being on the opposite side of the table of this creation as it stands (or even using one!). But, Id also not be adverse to the rules evolving too!


Thanks for taking the time to comment!