Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...

 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I think that is represented pathetically in Epic, with a Carnifex with nothing but a 3+ save.  Compare that to those same vehicles that have a 4+ RA.  Completely backwards from 40k, to be sure.

Their offensive power is lackluster as well.  I have YET to see ANY Armored Target survive an Assault from a Carnifex (S10, 2d6 AP per attack), yet fully half the hits are saved by typical armored targets in Epic.  A single MW attack does not do them justice.

But, all of that said, I think the Carnifex is appropriately done in the Epic list, purely from a standpoint of game-balance.  But don't kid yourself...they definitely don't match their fluff OR their abilities in 40k.


I think 4+ RA could go a ways towards balancing carnifexes (They're rubbish in Epic right now).

2)  +2 on any Cover Save they make, Always counts as being in Cover even if in the open (-1 to hit, 5+ Cover Save)

But even THAT doesn't work as well as it should, because in Epic, unlike in 40k, MW shots IGNORE cover saves, as opposed to only GETTING a save vs such weapons if you are in cover.  Goofy.  And just another example of how you shouldn't get too locked into the mindset of how everything must be a direct conversion from 40k or Fluff to Epic.

Worth bearing in mind, but I think it could be a better mechanic than simply raising their save to 4+ RA.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85

(Dave @ Oct. 28 2007,14:29)
QUOTE

(Kagetora @ Oct. 24 2007,18:50)
QUOTE
Give Gargoyles a 30cm AA 3+ attack that, if it hits, you remove the Gargoyle stand. ?25 points and a possiblity of a Brood 2 re-spawn seems VERY appropriate cost-wise for a 3+ hit that armor/jink saves are allowed against.

So for 25 additional points you can give your Termegants jump packs and a 3+ AA attack? I don't see anything very appropriate cost-wise about that, sorry. That would instantly make them the best AA in the game I think...

Try that with your opponents throughout the campaign, and then have them post comments on it here.

Ok, explain to me how the following is the best AA in the game:

I pay 25 points every time I cause a hit, and for that hit, I recieve a Blast Marker, AND lose a Unit from the Formation.  I can get that Unit back, but it costs double the Brood Points of any comparable Unit.

Not to mention that the Aircraft eithe get an Armor Save, or a Jink Save (even for free after their attack run).

Additionally, using my AA prevents me from advancing my Tyranid Swarm at March Speed.

And you think that somehow compares to MW5+ AA on every Feral Ork unit, 6xAA4+ for a group of Firestorms, or a bazillion shots at AA6+ from dirt-cheap Ork Flawagons?  Please.  Not to mention most lists can have their own Aircraft on CAP and also have incidental AA fire from some units.

No, I think that would be pretty far from the best AA in the game.  Pretty far indeed.

You are correct, however, in assuming it may not be the best solution.  I never said it was...it was merely a suggestion I thought would be cool "fluff-wise."

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am coming to believe that Tyranid AA is functioning like it should...that is to say, the advance assaulting swarms essentially leave the AA envelope when they attack.  I just really think the AA enevlope in the rear (i.e. the Mieotic Spores) should be better able to do their job.  They should be a bit cheaper, limited in number to avoid Junk Activations, and be able to spread out a bit.

I'd like to see them be 100 points for 6, 0-2 in the list, and have Scout.  Let them sit over the top of the Synapse Node/Dactylis groups and protect them from air power, but don't charge an arm and a leg for it.

And I'd be perfectly happy to see Gargoyles lose AA ability at all, or just keep their 6+.

You guys have mostly changed my mind on this issue.  At least until AFTER I get blown to smithereens by Air Power in the upcoming Campaign.  At that point, I'll probably start pushing for better AA again.   :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
They should be a bit cheaper, limited in number to avoid Junk Activations


They are limited in number already because they eat into your independent budget.

No need to go placing 0-x limits in as well, lest we end up with something like the Black Legion list (Which has too many overpowered unit types constrained by clunky 0-x limits).

And I'd be perfectly happy to see Gargoyles lose AA ability at all, or just keep their 6+.

Lose it. Lose it. Lose it.  :D





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
@Kagetora: You compared the Lictors to Tyranid Warriors. But bear in mind that the stats for the Lictor represent one single Lictor while the stats for the Tyranid Warriors represent a unit of three Tyranid Warriors.

Apart from this i totally agree on your perception how Lictors have to work.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Blacklegion: Not really, Lictors are covered under the 'large tyranid infantry' special rule*Yep another  special rule!*, which allows them to be based singly. Tyranid warriors are also listed in this special rule.

Thus, most people base their warriors in threes as they have lots of them, but they base their lictors singly when technically they should also be based 3-7 like other infantry.





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Ah ok. But this is strange, becaus ein Wh40k Tyranid Warriors always walk in units of 3-9 Warriors and never alone, where Lictiors are purchased 0-3 as a single (and only) entry but operate alone.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Operating alone in a W40k game just means they are in a single formation with the scouts special rule in Epic. :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Yes it is :)

So Tyranid Warriors have their own version of Scout because the individual models of the unit are dispersed up to 5cm from each other? :D

Then you should allow up to 9 stands of Tyranid Warriors per swarm, because Tyranid Warrior broods can be 3-9 models. :)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I tend to ignore the 'large tyranid infantry' rule as just another example of the lack of models amongst playtesters influencing the army list's development.

As in I literally ignore the rule, and base my 'large' infantry 3 to a base, as is allowed in the standard rules.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Hena @ Oct. 28 2007,20:12)
QUOTE
I would think that it's also because all older Tyranid players have Lictors based singly :).

They are foolish and weak.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I would have no problem with Lictors being Light Vehilces but a fitting armour value. Then all Tyranids should ignore Dangerous Terrain tests too :) They are living vehicles. They are born to fit all types of terrain.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Actually that's a good point.

Any Tyranid that doesn't already have the walker special rule should immediately gain it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Not walker. They shouldn't have to roll for dangerous terrain at all. All Tyranids should treat terrain as if they where Infantry for movement purposes, but AV, LV and WE don't gain cover saves.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
AV, LV and WE don't gain cover saves


That's against the Tyranid background, where they make maximum use of camouflage and terrain.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net