| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Eldar Aspects http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=6202 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
This topic has come up several times on the playtest forum and I wanted to get some opinions from you guys on it. I believe that the guardian-piloted tanks in the Eldar forces is a silly thing. ?Providing armored support in combat is as much a profession as any other military specialty. ?As such, Eldar should have "Aspect" tank drivers, just like they do for infantry and titan crews. Even if they do not have dedicated specialists for the more general-purpose units like falcons and wave serpents, there should at the very least be specialists for their exotic weapon systems like Nightspinners and Fire Prisms. I also maintain that the reason the military specialists are all infantry is because of the history of GW production capability, rather than the background of the Eldar. The counter-argument to this is that Eldar are in limited numbers and it would therefore be wise to have less specialized forces to provide increased flexibility. What is the consensus on this board? |
|
| Author: | stormseer [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Personally, I think that there shouldn't be an Aspect for tank crew as such, I'm more inclined to say that there should just be a better crew type of Guardians who have been extensily trained up to use their vehicles.... It does get extremely annoying for me when playing 40k with my Eldar to have my super-tank-killer Fire Prism missing pathetically every turn due to Guardians dreadful BS 3.... 
|
|
| Author: | primarch [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Hi! I think they should use guardians for this, but they are under rated. They should be better than IG, but less so than SM. Primarch |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Drivers are selected from there own MOS (Military Occupation Speciality) - Infantrymen, Medics, Artillery crews, Maint. Teams, etc. are trained to drive their own vehicles. But you know that Neal and so from that standpoint this would be a correct assumption. ?A Falcon is an MBT that can transport troops too, so the drivers probably are Guardians (?), since this is an Eldar concept of and MBT/APC/IFV hybrid ... it obviously work for these "Aliens". ?The Wave Serpent may be the same case. ?If only Aspects use it then Aspects probably drive it ? ?
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
>> ...there should just be a better crew type of Guardians who have been extensily trained... This is the idea that completely gets under my skin.  It doesn't fit the background at all.The Eldar are all about ultra-disciplined dedication to a single purpose. Their entire society is based on their Paths. The only way there are multi-purpose Eldar is through extreme need (Guardian militia) or leaving the Path system altogether (Rangers). A need for "extensive training" means there is or should be a Path. I think they could be summed up by the saying "If it's worth doing right, it's worth perfecting through obsessive dedication." Or possibly from Karate Kid, "You tank driver yes. Okay. you tank driver no. Okay. You tank driver enh-enh-enh-enh. Squish! Just like grape." If you disagree with a dedicated profession/Path, what in the Eldar background would lead you to believe that? |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
I had actually never thought about this, but I agree that there should be a dedicated aspect for drivers. I would argue this by stating that the tactics, thought process and skills of a driver would be so different to a standard guardian, possibly more different than that between a Guardian and a Scorpion. But, where do you stop? Aspects for tank drivers, artillery drivers, Falcon gunners, Aspects that park in small spaces on Craftworlds.... I think that a seperate Aspect for tank drivers sounds logical. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Legion: Yeah. I said I could buy Guardians driving the general-purpose stuff, but it is still problematic for the specialty vehicles. |
|
| Author: | Shadow Hunter [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
I dont mind the fact that guardians pilot the vehicles. What I am annoyed by, is the fact that the most sophistcated race dont have any kind of targetters for their vehicles. Especially the FirePrism, which in 2nd Ed. 40K had its troop carrying capability compromised by its large genertaors and sophisticated targetting arrays. This vehicle, out of every races, should have a targetting device. I mean, its supposed to shoot down fast flyers, yet cant hit a stationary Leman Russ 10 Inches away 50% of the time!!!!!!!! 
|
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Anti-Armor crews are Infantrymen trained to use those weapon systems ... IMO ... Guardians would be the crew for Prism Cannons (A-T Crew), Night Spinners (FA Crew), etc. ?But again, that's my opinion ...
|
|
| Author: | MaksimSmelchak [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
I do definitely think that there should be a "pilot" Aspect Warrior since it definitely flows with eldar cultural theory / fluff. This is how I've always justified not having specialized warriors: "There is already an apect Warrior or Warriors in every Eldar vehicles... it's called a spirit stone, which contains the ancestors and spirits of past vehcile pilots / drivers. The Guardian pilots constantly consult these spiritual helpers and even cede command to them when advantageous... " Hey, I've always thought that Eldar vehicles did have sophisticated targetting equipment? (Instead of the generally W.W.II level of technology that the Imperium has... ) I don't mind the fact that Guardians pilot the vehicles. What I am annoyed by, is the fact that the most sophisticated race doesn't have any kind of targetters for their vehicles. Especially the FirePrism, which in 2nd Ed. 40K had troop carrying capability that was compromised by its' large generators and a sophisticated targetting arrays. This vehicle, out of every races, should, at the very least, have a targetting device. I mean, it's supposed to shoot down fast flyers, yet it can't hit a stationary Leman Russ 10 Inches away 50% of the time!!! | |
| Author: | MaksimSmelchak [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Anyone else miss the days when Guardians had heavy weapons instead of weapon platforms? It seems to me that the Eldar would still have a use for manhandled heavy weapons rather than vehicle-bound ones especially with the extremely limited numbers of Dark Reapers. Shalom, Maksim-Smelchak. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Legion>> Anti-Armor crews are Infantrymen trained to use those weapon systems ... IMO ... Guardians would be the crew for Prism Cannons (A-T Crew), Night Spinners (FA Crew), etc. I agree in principal. Guardians are okay for the generic weapon systems - scatter lasers, shuriken cannons, laser cannons, and so on. As I said, I have little problem with Guardian Falcon and Wave Serpent pilots. However, for highly specialized weapon systems like prism cannons and night spinners, there should be specialists. As a modern analog, sure you can pretty much just grab any grunt to run a .50-cal mounted on an APC. Grunts are door gunners on choppers. You even use grunts to run automatic grenade launchers on hovercraft. You do not throw a grunt in the gunner seat on an M1 Abrams. That is it's own specialty. |
|
| Author: | stormseer [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
I do see what you mean Neal, its just I don't think the Eldar would have a specific aspect just for piloting and/or gunnery- As I said, I would think more along the lines of trained up Guardians; Eldar devote large portions of their lives to following certain paths, and for me "tank driver" doesn't seem to be in line with the other ones, full of meditation, careful rituals and so on..... I still think this is a very good point you raise, and I have to say I'm not entirely happy with my justification, it just doesn't "feel" right for me.... 
|
|
| Author: | MaksimSmelchak [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Neil (author) or Jimbo (moderator), Could you please fix the title of this thread to "Eldar Aspects" from the current typo version of "Edlar Aspects?" I'd feel much better writing about the Eldar rather than the Ed'Lar! ?  I can't help it, really! I was born this way. Shalom, Maksim-Smelchak. |
|
| Author: | stormseer [ Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Eldar Aspects |
Hehe, I too was going to post that suggestion Maksim....
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|