Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 8
  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:53 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 said the same thing a few postings before...

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:14 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote (tneva82 @ 04 April 2006 (09:24))
Quote (Hena @ 03 April 2006 (19:56))
Odd... One would think that 10 marines are a squad and not 5.... Sod that. I'm painting my ultras with 2 stands = 1 squad.

Which is what they are as a matter of fact. Which has made the 1 stand=1ML feel odd but a) it's probably balance thing b) could just represent that marine with missile launcher is tad more dangerous than say IG with missile launcher. Or simple abstaction to take into account special weapon in the squad as well.

The weapon load of an SM stand includes the fact that 4/1 is a common 40K arrangement AND that SMs have a higher ballistic skill AND the effect of various and multiple kinds of heavy/special weapons.

JJ crunched a lot of numbers from 40K before deciding on the first round of stats for the core armies.  The reason SMs have twice the firepower that the IG do is that in practical terms that is how it works out in 40K.

It was decided after long debate to name specific infantry-portable weapons rather than a generic "heavy weapons" entry for flavor reasons even though it was supposed to represent an aggregate of the effects of all the various heavy weapons.

Then, in order to avoid confusion, the weapons were standardized based on the name.

Those are both excellent reasons, but the unfortunate side effect is that now everyone's first reaction is that "missile launcher" means that there is a single trooper lugging around exactly that piece of gear and that a missile launcher should always be AP5/AT6 per weapon regardless of who is firing it when that's not the case at all.  The "missile launcher" stat line takes into account far more than the fact of its simple existence.

===

The point, in case anyone still cares, is that the weapon names are cosmetic.  Give the doggone units something that approximates the amount of firepower they should have relative to other units in the game based on the considerations above, call it all "heavy weapons," twek it for feel, balance it, and fill in the weapon names later.

If you absolutely, positively can't escape 40K absolutism, get out the calculator and crunch a big pile of numbers based on various loadouts against various opponents, weight and average it, and set the generic stat line(s) based on that.

Then burn your calculations, all your 40K books, and scatter the ashes because you need never refer to them again.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Then burn ... all your 40K books, and scatter the ashes because you need never refer to them again.


That's blasphemy... Heretic.

:/ :p




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (Hena @ 03 April 2006 (22:46))
Tactica,

I quess we then just have to disagree with each other.

@Hena,

Agreed. Its OK. Differing opinions are what keeps the board hopping.

CS will make a call one way or the other in the next revision if a problem creeps up. I think we've both made our respective cases. I don't think either of us is wrong, it just comes down to design perspective in the end.

For now, we get to see how the v4.4 vault list plays with the other changes for awhile.

If the PF's are incorrectly pointed, imbalanced, unjustified, broken, out of character or otherwise wrong as they pertain to the v4.4 list - I'm sure that will come out in this round of playtesting.

I'm sure TRC will continue to stress test them - and I encourage any to do so against multiple opponents. Hopefully stress testing doesn't stop there.

I'm still waiting to see the scorpionfish floatilla game I'm sure somebody will be planning. :p

Let the playtests begin!

cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Well, TRC is currently in something of a playtest limbo, not knowing from when the next game will come :(

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
I think we discussed that the GW website (from the previous Tau codex era) referenced the Rail rifles being experimental.

I thought I would mention that in the most current literature that we have to reference, the new Tau Empires Codex, the Rail rifle technology is no longer experimental. The author says it has completed its extensive testing phase. The exact text is quoted below for your edification.

+ + + Page 29, Tau Empires Codex + + +
+ + + end of second and beginning of third colum + + +

Rail rifle
The rail rifle is an implemenation of the technology utilised in the railgun that is mounted on vehicles and Braodside battlesuits. It has only recently been authorised for issue to front-line units, having completed an extensive field-testing phase.

R: 36", S: 6, AP: 3, Type: Heavy 1, Pinning

+ + + End reference + + +

Cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 8
  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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