| Author |
Message |
Forum: NetEA Adeptus Astartes Topic: Landraider Ares |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:43 am
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 4482
|
| Maybe it should only get one extra attack for both flamers, otherwise, it could be too good at killing vehicles in firefight. Its flamers should not get better than 1 hellhound each IMO (they have 3+ FF ignore cover). Or we could go for 2 extra attacks ignore cover, but with a FF of 3+ (3+ would mak... |
|
 |
Forum: NetEA Imperial Guard Topic: The Stormhammer SHT |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:22 am
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 11022
|
Indeed, it would probably be more better (I just edited it), although I envisionned it unloading its cannon of doom at point blank range (with its fast rotating turrets) 
|
|
|
Forum: NetEA Imperial Guard Topic: The Stormhammer SHT |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:01 am
|
|
Replies: 84
Views: 11022
|
| Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 23 Mar. 2009, 20:16 ) The Stormhammer is the 'short range/Firefight' SHT. I agree. We could focus it on close range support by decreasing its range to 30cm, and improving its FF value. Something like 3+ FF 1 or 2 extra attacks, and of course, replace the lascannon with ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Passing Your Turn |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:20 pm
|
|
Replies: 37
Views: 7825
|
| Quote: (Rug @ 25 Mar. 2009, 08:59 ) At the very least if you know you opponent has lots of activations, you can do the same! His tactics will quickly change! That is the problem indeed : I usually go for high activations myself, but that doesn't make me love this mechanism It is just that I fee... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Passing Your Turn |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:55 am
|
|
Replies: 37
Views: 7825
|
Don't take aircraft <= so it limits the tactical options available...
Don't take spacecraft <= same there
Garrison two big shooty formations on OW on your forward objectives but only use the OW in life or death situations, that way they disrupt the enemy's plans without even activating <= that is only a wait option, without a direct possibility to do so. How is it infinitely better?
Most of the other are good advice indeed, but these tips would work against the opponent wether he outactivates you or not.
So it looks like you are advocating playing better against someone outactivating you 
Anyway, it is not like small formations would lose their appeal. There are many other factors that make them better than big ones:
-Less juicy target means the ennemy will not always waste a big unit firing at them.
-They can control more ground
-The ennemy still needs one unit to place a BM on each of your small units, instead of just one on a big one
-You have higher variance on activation
-you can make better use of cover, and have less LOS problem than with biger units
-small units get a much better benefit from marshall orders
The bigger units would benefit from a higher resilience, and faster strikes, which is good indeed, but in no way is it a no brainer over smaller units, even without the outactivation benefit.
I don't think this has much to do with the fact that maneuver is more important in Epic than it is in WH40K. Most of it comes from relative unit speed and range: most unit can get further with a double that they can shoot, and assault is the preferred way to fight for most armies (maybe except the guard).
That and killing can only get you so far when victory is decided by controlling objectives.
The current activation mechanism doesn't make maneuver any more important, it only makes some army compositions less viable than other.
Allowing to pass turn is maybe not critical, but it will certainly not turn the game into a SM2nd edition sluggfest.
|
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Passing Your Turn |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 37
Views: 7825
|
ooops sorry, you are right, it would not work at all, I meant half of your opponent's formations :/
Counting model would be meaningless and too cumbersome indeed.
I should stop trying to type when I cannot find sleep. |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Adeptus Astartes Topic: Changing marine armour |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:38 pm
|
|
Replies: 33
Views: 6376
|
I'd rather have them a little more resilient, as it would capture the SM flavor better, however, that would imply redoing the whole list, so I think making them cheaper would be an easier hotfix (edit: sorry, didn't see the poll was that old...).
|
|
|
Forum: NetEA Adeptus Astartes Topic: What's happening in Codex land? |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:55 am
|
|
Replies: 3
Views: 930
|
| Marines and guard allying was pretty overpowered in 2nd edition IMO. I'd rather have a veteran profile for marines than LR variants (I'd rather have the normal ones fixed as I found them pretty underpeforming for their price). |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Passing Your Turn |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:52 am
|
|
Replies: 37
Views: 7825
|
| A good solution someone had proposed on F-erc was to only be allowed to pass when you had less than half of your opponent's models. Thus it would prevent early popcorn abuse by the player with the least formations, while allowing him to keep some for the end. I think it is the best option to do it. |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Chaos Topic: World Eaters v1.01 |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:20 am
|
|
Replies: 58
Views: 8726
|
| hehe, my main problem with the rule is the rule lawyering it could induce, as the unit coherency and maximum move distance are contradictory. I don't think it is imbalanced in one way or the other. It is just that after playing some Fantasy flight games, I do believe in not leaving loopholes in the ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Variable Armour |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:31 pm
|
|
Replies: 30
Views: 4389
|
| Quote: (Ginger @ 21 Mar. 2009, 11:14 ) If you follow the maths statistics, you will find the variable armour actually allows an increment of approximately 10% between each level, while also allowing the armour to emphasise different qualities. But, as I said musch earlier, it should only be app... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Chaos Topic: World Eaters v1.01 |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:40 am
|
|
Replies: 58
Views: 8726
|
| Indeed: I had no particular mechanism in mind, but the exemple I gave would be redundant with fearless that most of the World Eater units already have. I was just saying that if we were to give them a flavor mechanism, it would be more fitting to have them behave uniquely during an assault than befo... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Variable Armour |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:43 am
|
|
Replies: 30
Views: 4389
|
| Sorry for necroing such an old topic. Even though I don't like bloating rules, I think it would be needed indeed, because currently, there is way too much difference between a RA3+, RA4+, and RA5+ armor, which results in RA3+ not being used at all, and a big gap between RA4+ and RA5+ the math is obv... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Chaos Topic: World Eaters v1.01 |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:03 am
|
|
Replies: 58
Views: 8726
|
| I don't like the forced maximum movement after a failed activation for several reasons: As Irondeath pointed out, it limits their tactical options too much, and the maximum movement allowed while respecint unit coherency may lead to excessive rule lawering (what if there is dangerous terrain between... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Passing Your Turn |
| Galdred |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:05 am
|
|
Replies: 37
Views: 7825
|
| That would work better than my similar suggestions indeed. Or if we want to have a more synchronous flow (that is, if we want A and B to have moved about the same percentage of their army at the same time): B, who has the fewer units, would be allowed to pass a number of time equal to the difference... |
|
|
| Sort by: |