Disrupt is indeed pooled in with other normal hits as are Ignore Cover. They are tracked as Disrupt or IC, but they are all in the same pool. How they are allocated is really never addressed. Also, allocating MW-Inf first wouldn't make them hit Infantry neccessarily, due to fromt to back allocation. And those that hit AVs would be doing non-MW damage in the MW pool. It's not worth the hassle to try to make it work. It'd turn into spaghetti rulings very quickly.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Yes, people can still apply the hits on AV, if they are the first targets. However the charging playing still gets a measurably good control on what units get targeted. The fact atht some hist will target AV is actaually a good representation of the mess an Assault is supposed to be imho.

Its your call in the end.

However you did propose the rule, and we did try it, and we do like it.

I don't think anyone that has tried it has actually voiced anything against the rule. Only the same people that were against it originally are against it now.

Did you try it?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I did propose it. I still like it as a concept. I've come to the conclusion that its implementation would need to be so full of exceptions and subclauses it will never fit in with my vision of how Epic should be, unfortunately. There is no way to explain the rule in a single short paragraph and cover as many eventualities as possible.

I'd still like to see some testing with Infiltrate and hear opinions about personalizing Exarch Weapons the way EUK has, though.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Personalizing EUK exarch stats:

The only exarchs that get a change are Fire dragons and Howling Banshees, all the others are unchanged.

euk Fire dragons are notoriously overpowered, it's the only exarch ever picked in the lists with the rare exceptions of single aspect formations (warp spiders and swooping hawks).

euk Banshees are still underpowered as WS are better in 80% of situations. Also, 2+ CC is not supported by fluff.

euk rule does nothing for the Dire avenger exarch or the striking scorpion exarch which are absolutely never taken.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Warp Spiders will always be better than Banshees because they do the same things, but in FF. Even adding Infiltrate won't change that - it's one reason I've resisted it in the past. All the EUK list does is extend the Aspect special rules to the Exarch attacks. I think it's a reasonable start.

Changing how the Exarchs work won't fix the Aspects; so we need to consider these changes seperately.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

You are in favour of those insane FD exarchs?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I'm in favor of considering the EUK stats. If we fix the Banshees it only makes sense to approach the Fire Dragons the same way. It's not set in stone at this time.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I'm a total newbie, but two things as input.

First, the rules are a bit of a learning curve as it is. Where-ever possible, I urge parsimony. It's better to reuse an existing rule than it is to try to create a new one.

Second, is there any reason that Banshees can't be given Disrupt? I know it's normally used for artillery-style ranged attacks, but the fluff fits perfectly, the ability to inflict extra blast markers comes in handy, and it is its own little niche rather than trying to compete with other units that do roughly the same thing (Striking Scorpions). It seems like a viable alternative to straight-up increases in lethality, which seem to be what most of the theorycrafting deals with.

Hi. In the current interpretation of the rules (which I wouldnt be too optmisistic about changing in any reasonable future), disrupt does not do anything in assaults, and HBs have no shooting attack. Good idea though.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Did you find any problems with the Fire Dragons as they are now?

Is there any data on which you base this consideration?

Have you ever played Fire Dragons?

I have never found problems with currently statted Fire Dragons. On the contrary, they function in most instances better than Dire Avengers, and their Exarchs are much beter than Dire Avenger exarchs.

If the argument is flavour, can we bring it up as a valid argument to propose stat changes on approved (Eldar) lists? If yes, who judges the flavour, and how?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

Thank you for saying that. I've become increasingly concerned by the idea of adding yet more rules, as I find it off putting enough myself in spite of not being a newbie, and I was concerned that it would also be off putting to new players.

This whole discussion about Howling Banshees is a severe case of déja vu. I'm getting to the stage where I think that we would all be just better off shrugging our shoulders and recognising that they are not that effective, but just leaving them as they are, because the solutions all have a lot of pitfalls.

The main problem is that FF trumps base to base in assaults, especially for fragile units like Eldar Aspect Warriors. That's inherent within the core rules though, so I'm not at all sure what we can do to fix it. I think that we'll possibly end up causing more problems than we will find solutions.

If anything is to be done with the Howling Banshees, then the only thing that strikes me as appropriate is the MW versus infantry concept. Whether that's balanced or a solution I'm not entirely sure, because I haven't tried it, but it seems to me, from looking through the list of options, to be the best of them without adding more rules.

Regarding everything else, I'm still not convinced about changing the rules for the Cobra. You can see the previous thread for my views on that, while everything else seems to just be a case of debating some minor points changes, which I have no strong feelings about either way.

_________________

Maybe recognizing that Banshees (and to a lesser extent, Scorpions) are not as effective as FF aspects, and price them accordingly? The "same price for all Aspects" symmetry is pleasing, but if you got at (say) 25 pts discount for choosing 4 banshees, or got Banshee Exarchs for free, then I'm sure we'd be seeing them more frequently.

S2M speaks the truth. CC will never be as flexible as FF based units. Doesn't mean they are not useful, just more a specific use unit. They should be priced far less than other aspects IMHO. I am a proponent of Infiltrate from both a usability / uniqueness stand point AND for fluff as it models the abilties of the Banshee Mask quite well.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Considering, LotM, considering. MW Dragon Exarchs won't appear in your list tomorrow. It may never. It's an option though. It makes sense from the point of view of fluff and simplicity. However Dragons are considered a second tier aspect, right under Spiders. It may not be wise. Which doesn't mean I don't still want opinions.


That's more or less where I'm at now too.

As to pricing Aspects differently, it would ultimately require restriciting the freedom that players currently have to form an Aspect formation, which opens its own can-o'-beans. If we as a community want to go there we can, but...

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Fair enough.

On the HBs and pricing, Chroma had made a Crone world list with 250 pt Banshee formations...

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell