| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Armour in Epic:Armageddon http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17895 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | Irondeath [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Most of us remember the old days: Company cards, hordes of infantry and score of tanks on the field, half a day to resolve a game... you have those armies at home, I have. While I sure do not miss the tedium, I do miss the massed armour fielded back in the day. Apart from the IG Tank Company (plus the de-rigeur Hydra and Commissar) and Eldar Swords of Vaul tanks are rarely seen. They are ineffective or overcosted, and there are numerous options to deal with them, assaults, TK, BMing. This is plain wrong. I, and many others, would love to see armour at least on an equal footing with WE and infantry. Russ Coys rule through sheer numbers and firepower, Eldar hide sneakily and only strike where they choose, but other than that, armour just piles on BM suppressing expensive units and firepower, and entrenched infantry easily beats them off in both assaults and just weathers prolonged shooting. Where are the rapidly penetrating Land Raider formations not exploiting but creating the Schwerpunkt? Why is is not even seen with the large BL armoured companies? Why the marked dominance of infantry? Where are the large tank formations (IG aside) as a at least viable alternative. Current tank formation are not taken not because of style issues but because they do not perform. What can be done? |
|
| Author: | Spectrar Ghost [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
I think tank formations underperform because they are primarily shooting formations in a game where it is difficult to win through shooting alone. Assaults are the decisive factor in most games, and tanks are adequate, but not overpowering in assault. As it should be. The question is can we tweak the shooting rules to improve them but not overpower them? Perhaps adding an extra BM when shot by AVs, or something similar. SG |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
I've long been of the opinion that Space Marine tanks are generally overpriced, and so are only useful in niche support rather than mainstay roles. The NetEA rules ammendments go some way towards fixing this, in my opinion. The other armies are (mostly) fine as regards numbers of vehicles, IMO. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Tau tend to use a lot of tanks as well. |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: I think tank formations underperform because they are primarily shooting formations in a game where it is difficult to win through shooting alone Quote: Tau tend to use a lot of tanks as well. These two statements put together really sum up a problem with the Tau list at least |
|
| Author: | Hymirl [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
I too lament the poor land raider & predator... it needs to be cheaper, and have meatier formations. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: (Hymirl @ Feb. 11 2010, 01:00 ) it needs to be cheaper, and have meatier formations. They may not be "cheaper", but there are "meatier" Space Marine armour formations in the Scions of Iron Space Marine Chapter list, as it is supposed to be an armour-focused variant list. The "core" Marine List is more deepstrike and/or mechanized infantry-focused, so it's not going to meet your needs for armour. And, no, a core list doesn't have to allow all army types as viable options, though some are better at that then others. |
|
| Author: | Hymirl [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Sorry Chroma I totally disagree with that excuse no matter how many times it gets repeated. Whats next? You're going to advocate that IG should pay 500 points per valkyrie/vulture because they're 'not supposed to fly'...  If its a unit in the list it ought to be a ballanced and effective unit and a worthwhile option... end of. And no, I still don't want to go and play some weird fanfic varient tank list... I just want a formation of tanks. |
|
| Author: | AxelFendersson [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: (Hymirl @ Feb. 11 2010, 01:23 ) And no, I still don't want to go and play some weird fanfic varient tank list... I just want a formation of tanks. If you don't like fan-contributed additions to the game, then you're out of options. No amount of grumbling here is going to get the points values or vehicle profiles in the E:A rulebook changed. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: (Hymirl @ Feb. 11 2010, 01:23 ) And no, I still don't want to go and play some weird fanfic varient tank list... I just want a formation of tanks. Everything on these boards is now "fanfic", as GW isn't supporting EPIC:A development in any way. Even your desired "properly costed" formation of tanks is just more fans making changes, so I'm not sure what you're looking for then or why you're being so dismissive of "fanfic" here.  That's all there is left for EPIC, if you want any changes that is. If you want a kind of "armoured support" Marine army list, which is what the Scions are, btw, why not start development on one, with the point costs you think are appropriate?  If people like it, or it fulfils a need, you could see a lot of interst in it; that's a good way to contribute. Or, if you don't want to do a full blown list, why not do some playtesting of a "standard" Marine army, but with reduced point values for armour formation, to see how they play?  Generating information for discussion is another good way to contribute. I'm not sure where the hyperbole of the "500 point Valkyrie" is coming from or how that's even relevant, as changes like that have never been discussed; it's not like Land Raiders are ten times too expensive. |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: (Hena @ Feb. 11 2010, 06:24 ) Quote: (Hymirl @ Feb. 11 2010, 03:00 ) I too lament the poor land raider & predator... it needs to be cheaper, and have meatier formations. Annihilators are one of my most used formations. I have a friend who always uses a formation of Land Raiders. If you don't want to use them, that's your choice. I always use a couple of formations of armour in my general SM army, they always do quite well. I have used an entirely armour based SM army and it did very well.. OK it was agains Sisters of Battle and they have very little AT firepower so I'm not sure if it would be something I would do a lot. |
|
| Author: | Irondeath [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Playing variant lists is fine with me, wrong pricing in the main lists is not. As it stands the Land Raider formation the vanilla SM list is never taken. It is a non-option. Scions introduces a lot of variants and is definitely a solid, interesting list, but it cannot cure the deficiencies of the basic list, which most of us agree lies in overpriced armour. Same with Orks, the Blitz Brigade is a vehicle to get Oddboy upgrades and almost worthless without them. Tank formations work for IG and Eldar since , due to their stats and formation size, these can deliver quite a lot of firepower with good protection. High cost and low numbers prevent the same for SM and BL, while Gunwagonz are totally eclipsed by the awesomeness of the Zzaps/Soopas. |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Armour in Epic:Armageddon |
Quote: (Hena @ Feb. 11 2010, 09:35 ) I was talking about vanilla Marines list. Me too. I've used both Predators and Land Raiders multiple times and they seem to work fine. But they are support, don't expect them to be your main strike force. Which is only right as Space Marines are meant to be at the centre of a Space Marine Army. |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|