Question on Rhino/Razorback doors

[The Normish]

I was just mulling over in my head the drawbacks of non-jumping assault marines being transported in Razorbacks, most notably, that they have to get out the back (the other drawbacks being no charging, and only six of them). This led me to wonder: Can one put the doors for their Razorbacks, or even Rhinos, on the FRONT of the vehicle, though they are habitually at the back? The troops inside the vehicle would obviously still have the drawback of not having the charging bonus, but for aesthetic purposes and for ones of gameplay it could be advantageous.

Would this be a legal conversion, a legal vehicle? I ask since it would affect usual gameplay.

[dswanick]

I was just mulling over in my head the drawbacks of non-jumping assault marines being transported in Razorbacks, most notably, that they have to get out the back (the other drawbacks being no charging, and only six of them). This led me to wonder: Can one put the doors for their Razorbacks, or even Rhinos, on the FRONT of the vehicle, though they are habitually at the back? The troops inside the vehicle would obviously still have the drawback of not having the charging bonus, but for aesthetic purposes and for ones of gameplay it could be advantageous.

Would this be a legal conversion, a legal vehicle? I ask since it would affect usual gameplay.

Codex: Space Marines lists the access points on a Rhino as one on each Side and one on the Rear. It also lists the Armor Value of a Rhino as S11 and R10. So long as you were willing to disembark from your Rhino with AV10 exposed, then it doesn't matter how you model the access points. But, honestly, you could just drive your normal Rhino up and pivot it 180' to position the Rear hatch and Rear AV10 towards your opponent. There's nothing wrong with that (other than the whole AV10 towards the enemy problem).

[Jacinda]

That would be risking "modeling for advantage" so I would say no.

 

You can get that extra bit of distance by spinning the Razorback around at the cost of exposing your rear armor. I think this is the whole idea of the Razorback in game design terms. Putting a door on the front means being able to disembark towards the enemy without exposing the rear armor and as such is a clear advantage over how it was designed to work.

 

[ETA]

I like dswanik's explination better. "The codex says 'no.'" B)

[The Normish]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Ah well.

So I could weasel out of it by making the front door have rear armor and the rear have front armor? I guess you could just do the swiveling, but I'm thinking th aesthetic might be pleasing as well.

[dswanick]

In that case, may I suggest the Clouseau-pattern Rhino?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/Clouseau-pattern Rhino

[The Normish]

In that case, may I suggest the Clouseau-pattern Rhino?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/Clouseau-pattern Rhino

Ah, thanks a lot, I'll give that a look - it's a modded Land Raider chassis, is it? Though I wouldn't want to deviate the topic into PCA.

[Acebaur]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Ah well.

So I could weasel out of it by making the front door have rear armor and the rear have front armor? I guess you could just do the swiveling, but I'm thinking th aesthetic might be pleasing as well.

 

I would say no. It's too confusing to try to explain to an opponent, and would be going into the territory of house rules. Keep in mind you can exit from the side doors as well and easily fit 6 marines in that space.

 

 

Off topic a bit, but what do you mean they don't get the charging bonus? They can't assault out of it if the vehicle moved but if it didn't they still get the +1A for charging .

[The Normish]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Ah well.

So I could weasel out of it by making the front door have rear armor and the rear have front armor? I guess you could just do the swiveling, but I'm thinking th aesthetic might be pleasing as well.

 

I would say no. It's too confusing to try to explain to an opponent, and would be going into the territory of house rules. Keep in mind you can exit from the side doors as well and easily fit 6 marines in that space.

 

 

Off topic a bit, but what do you mean they don't get the charging bonus? They can't assault out of it if the vehicle moved but if it didn't they still get the +1A for charging .

Yes, sorry, I meant they can't assault after leaving the vehicle.

[Jacinda]

Yes, sorry, I meant they can't assault after leaving the vehicle.

It's OK. I understand. Just like I also understand that you can disembark and assault on the same turn as long as the vehicle does not move actually means they can disembark and assault in the same turn as long as they disembarked before the vehicle moved. But all that gets rather unwieldy when trying to make a simple point that the rhino is not an assault vehicle.

[Ming]

US and other NATO IFVs have rear exit ramps for troops, in part because it makes great sense - the troops don't exit to get into HTH combat as much as deploy the squad's weapons in an anti-infantry (+/- AT) role, and protect the vehicle (nobody wants a RPG or machine gun round to bounce around the interior). The ONLY major troop transports that ever have done that were landing craft....and you can watch alot of movies to see how that goes.

 

If advances continue in body armor however, somebody may come up with the idea of dismounting and assaulting right into the enemy, but I doubt it.

 

In a similar analogue, if "overwatch" comes back to 40K, look for units to be dedicated to wrecking assault troops as they dismount...

 

Spinning the vehicle 180 as described above is your best option for now (or just driving it backwards....).

[Chengar Qordath]

If advances continue in body armor however, somebody may come up with the idea of dismounting and assaulting right into the enemy, but I doubt it.

I doubt we'll ever get to the point where "Drive the tank closer so I can hit them with my sword!" becomes a realistic tactic.

[Gentlemanloser]

It depends if your sword can cut effortlessly thorugh thier body armour, while your bullets bounce off it harmlessly. :)

[Acebaur]

If advances continue in body armor however, somebody may come up with the idea of dismounting and assaulting right into the enemy, but I doubt it.

I doubt we'll ever get to the point where "Drive the tank closer so I can hit them with my sword!" becomes a realistic tactic.

 

What do you mean? Templars have used that tactic for centuries, and very effectively as well :D

[Toasterfree]

even thought its not a OR response, here is a REAL WORLD explination of why in most cases transport vehicles have the exit ramp on the rear:

 

Take in note the assault landings at Normanday. The ramps for the infantry to exit off the landing craft were at the front. This allowed the German machine guns and small arms to fire right into the assault boats, thus hitting the exposed infantry. After this, and other landings in the Pacific Theater by both the US Army and Marine Corp, drove the Marines to design a transport that had the ramp in the REAR to offer the protection of the armored vehicle to the front of the infantry (allowing them to get out in relative safety) and to reduce the change of damage to the craft itself.

 

This of course is less applicable in 40k. But that is the real world explination of it.