Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

"Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
Chroma
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Hena @ Oct. 11 2007,12:56)
QUOTE
2. Also the flak wagon restriction of 0 - 2 per blitz brigade is, I think, than 0 - 1. Purely as ?0 - 2 would prevent full flak brigades, but allow mediocre amount of them in there.

You can still buy them for the "normal" cost of 35 points, so you aren't really restricted in having a whole bunch, you just can't get them at a discount, which is fine.

Most Blitz Brigades are "Big" anyway, to get the two Oddboyz, so that's 2 Flakwagonz per formation... how many do you need?  *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Hena @ Oct. 11 2007,13:27)
QUOTE
Change from 4 -> 1 is quite huge for something that isn't required for balance. So in this case I think it's overkill and shouldn't be done.

Well, usually it was "3", if you were going to max out... as you need a Gunwagon to carry the Oddboy... :D

I'd never actually fielded or seen the "Flakwagon Brigade" in any of my time playing...

I usually just field two Flakwagonz in a Big BB anyway, so none of this really affects my play style at all.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
semajnollissor
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Didn't the falkwagon restriction stem from an opinion that an all-flak blitz brigade seemed both abusive AND generally counter to the background?

You don't lose much when taking a flakwagon over a gunwagon, and you gain quite a bit versus air-heavy lists.

If taking all flakwagons is seen as acceptible (not abusive, and sufficiently orky), then their shouldn't be a change made. However, I don't think the all-flak brigade meets those requirements in most people's minds (obviously I could be mistaken).

That being said, I'd be OK with allowing 0-2 instead of 0-1 (though the difference seems neglegible to me, since you could just buy 1 more at relatively low [full] price of 35 points).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:32 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Yes like semajnollissor says. Abusive and uncharacteristic of the background.

0-2 still allows cheesy units like 2 Flaks, 1 GW and 1 Zzap. The whole point of the change was to get rid of this kind of thing.  Leaving it at 0-2 you might as well not change it all. 0-1 was a basically a compromise between those who wanted to restrict them to being taken as extra units at full price (35 points), and those ork players who wanted to keep their gamey uncharacteristic cheese (shame on them  :;): ).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:48 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
Had  change to look over the Army List Review tonight fully and I had some additional comments beyond what I said earlier about ATSKNF.

The IG changes I am happy with.  With the exception of the Baneblade I think they are all small but needed changes and adhere pretty close to the polling that we did hear this year.

----

On the Baneblade however, the heavy bolters are twin-linked on most of the models and in TRC's stats as well.  Was there any reason why Twin Heavy Bolters were left off here?

----

With regards to the new Commissars rule I think some redundancy can be eliminated.  Also, for fluff reasons, I think Commisars should not be allowed in Titans, Aircraft or spaceships.

6.4.1 Commissars
A Steel Legion Imperial Guard army may include 1 Commissar character per 500 points of the army's total point cost, rounding up.  Commissars are free upgrades and do not cost any points.

Consult the player's army list to see how many Commissar characters a player may add to their army at the start of the battle before either side sets up.  If the army includes a Supreme Commander than the first Commissar must be added to any unit in the Supreme Commander's formation.  Any further Commissars may be added to any unit in any other formations with the exception of Imperial Navy Aircraft, Titan Legion BattleGroups and Orbital Support formations.  A formation may not include more than one Commissar.  If there are more Commissars than formations any excess is lost.

----

On Sappers, if we are giving them the walker ability we might want to rewrite the walker special rule as it only makes reference to vehicles.

Can someone point me to the discussion as to why this change is happening too?  The same thing goes for the Hellhounds Siegemaster decrease to 125 points, why just them and not the Steel Legion?  Why not just give them firefight Ignore Cover?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:18 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Dave @ Oct. 14 2007,02:48)
QUOTE
Had  change to look over the Army List Review tonight fully and I had some additional comments beyond what I said earlier about ATSKNF.

The IG changes I am happy with.  With the exception of the Baneblade I think they are all small but needed changes and adhere pretty close to the polling that we did hear this year.

----

On the Baneblade however, the heavy bolters are twin-linked on most of the models and in TRC's stats as well.  Was there any reason why Twin Heavy Bolters were left off here?

----

With regards to the new Commissars rule I think some redundancy can be eliminated.  Also, for fluff reasons, I think Commisars should not be allowed in Titans, Aircraft or spaceships.

6.4.1 Commissars
A Steel Legion Imperial Guard army may include 1 Commissar character per 500 points of the army's total point cost, rounding up.  Commissars are free upgrades and do not cost any points.

Consult the player's army list to see how many Commissar characters a player may add to their army at the start of the battle before either side sets up.  If the army includes a Supreme Commander than the first Commissar must be added to any unit in the Supreme Commander's formation.  Any further Commissars may be added to any unit in any other formations with the exception of Imperial Navy Aircraft, Titan Legion BattleGroups and Orbital Support formations.  A formation may not include more than one Commissar.  If there are more Commissars than formations any excess is lost.

----

On Sappers, if we are giving them the walker ability we might want to rewrite the walker special rule as it only makes reference to vehicles.

Can someone point me to the discussion as to why this change is happening too?  The same thing goes for the Hellhounds Siegemaster decrease to 125 points, why just them and not the Steel Legion?  Why not just give them firefight Ignore Cover?

Re Baneblade, yes the HB should be twin linked I think. Neal might have thought it too much. An alternative would be to just keep the single twin linked HB and leave off the extra two (to match the actual SG model as opposed to the FW version, and go with a more minimal tweak which is always preferable).

Re: Commissars, restrictions unneccsary IMO.  However, like most things I think they should be allocated during army list creation. Mainly for ease of gameplay and balance (ditching having to create fiddly commissar markers), but also political officers should accompany a unit and influence it over time.

Re Siege Masters, see here:
http://forum.specialist-games.com/topic ... C_ID=11450

Yes possibly the walker ability should have some slight tweak to the flavour wording, given that it applies to whitescars bikes and now some other units too.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Hojyn
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
Hi,

and first off, thanks for the great job, Neal. It's nice ot finally have all the new rules (official and experimental) gathered in one document.

I have a question about the rule proposal for ? 1.12.3 (Charge Move). Your proposal (in bold) reads:

A maximum of two units may move into base contact with each defender. A charging unit that enters a zone of control must move into base contact with the nearest enemy whose zone of control has been entered to the limits of the charging unit?s remaining movement.  Once a unit has entered the target?s Zone of Control the requirement to move to base contact takes precedence over other restrictions and it may move through another unit?s Zone of Control, even if that unit is not in the target formation. Once a unit has been contacted it loses its zone of control for the rest of the assault, allowing other units to move past it.


Now I guess that "to the limits of the charging unit?s remaining movement" is there to clarify the fact that the charging unit may enter its target's ZoC even if it can't engage it in base contact.

If that is the intent, then I think the wording is not really clear because there's still a contradiction between "must move into base contact" and the fact that you can't always move into base contact.

How about this simple change:

A charging unit that enters a zone of control must try move into base contact with the nearest enemy whose zone of control has been entered to the limits of the charging unit?s remaining movement. etc.

Base contact is still compulsory, but now it's clearer that you can still enter the ZoC even if yo can't reach CC.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I've looked through the army list one and must say overall i like it.

Of course why post unless I can quibble? Unless I am quibbling it is safe to assume I agree 100%.

I'll stick to the armies I've played to death, as after a few months of nowt but refugees I'm a little rusty.

Space Marines

With no stacking of leader on the Supreme Commander should his cost be 75 points?

Drop Pods
An example of tournament gaming intruding on other styles. Also remember other marine armies. This leads onto a generic change below.
The point? Just change it to space marine infantry and dreadnoughts. This covers all possible future lists and ideas. Scouts are then dropped from the tournament list where they are a concern, so Drop pods become an upgrade in the main list for tactical and devastator formations.
Other lists then can drop scouts and others if they so desire.

Generic change
For transport make more generic so other troop types in other armies can use the transports?Currently grey hunters for instance can't get in rhinos.

Stuff like thunderhawks could be any 8 infantry stands, with terminators or dreadnaughts counting as two/taking the place of two etc.

Demolisher cannon
Well I am surprised, I guess this fits with apocalypse? Generally wary of any new MW's. Would have preferred +1 small arms attack ignore cover, or as a very slight boost disrupt. Goes for other instances of it occurring as well.

Vindicators - No walker then?

Interesting idea about Dreds, where did it come from? With 1-3 and the armour a dev/dred/hunter garrison could be an idea, and maybe a tac/dred/razor air drop formation would be good.

Scout sniper
As BL said we have tested it as 75. Horses for courses really, it didn't get that much use at 75.

Land Raiders upgrade.
Can't see where this is coming from much. For Terminators it is still a poor choice - 690 for a combined unit or 700 for seperate? Not much of a discount. Tis a boost for devs though. They get a bit cheaper overall and can they take 4 land raiders and 4 razorbacks if they so desire?
Still favour 75 points each and no option for devs, but its a very minor change.

Following on from that Dev formation
Still no vindicator option? Perhaps as above replace the land raiders as an upgrade? Not a major thing, indeed both this and the 'raider can be this way in this list and different in others.

Suggested addition
Alter the Landing craft transport options. The list is for tourneys but the stats for everything presumably. I would like the option to take on it what can be modeled - but how to word it? The options would be 4 raiders/3 raiders 1 rhino/2 raiders 3 rhinos/1 raider 4 rhinos/6 rhinos.




White Scars
The bikes still have walker?

Tactical formations
I thought everyone agreed to let them have hunters?

Whirlwind formations
Why should they have the option for vindicators?

Land Raider upgrade
I'd make it 325 as the formation worked fine when i tested it at 650 :)




Imperial Guard

Roughriders - time would tell if they get to weak this way.

Baneblade
Fire arcs are to fiddly and not needed, tis actually a downgrade in effectiveness as the opposition can dance round them and they'd not get to sustain much.
Twin heavy bolters surely? Explaining that we have a different model to forgeworld and 40k so less firepower seems a little poor. Come on, it ain't that much! :)

Commissars
I still think 1 per 450, but I recognise I am in a minority :)

* These unit?s formations may have Chimera transport vehicles. Each Chimera costs 25 points. You must take enough Chimera to transport the whole formation if any are taken, but you may not take more than one Chimera per unit in the formation.
- Bit confusing. So if I add 6 infantry to a tank formation i can take 16 chimera? (I know its not, but...)
How about
* These unit?s formations may have Chimera transport vehicles. Each Chimera costs 25 points. You must take enough Chimera to transport the whole formation if any are taken, but no more than are nessecery/may not have extra empty ones etc.



Siegemasters
I think these are a great set of ideas Neal :)

1 comment
8 Sapper units. The units may be split up and added 250 points to one or more Infantry Companies in the army, or fielded as a single formation in their own right.

Bit confusing. Suggest move the FAQ answer into here?




In general any chance of working more of the FAQ answers into into section (or if not have an army FAQ after its list in the book)?



I'm sure everyone has the ork and eldar well in hand :)

_________________
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  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Demolisher cannon
Well I am surprised, I guess this fits with apocalypse? Generally wary of any new MW's. Would have preferred +1 small arms attack ignore cover, or as a very slight boost disrupt. Goes for other instances of it occurring as well.


This came from a comparison with the 40k stats, comparable weapons that also have MW status, and a desire to see something tested.

Baneblade
Fire arcs are to fiddly and not needed

I think this is the only change in the handbook/change docs that was never put to a vote.


For transport make more generic

Neither can 'death company' etc.

I think a note in each new unit type stating what it counts as for transport purposes would be sufficient. (IE: Note: Death Company Marines count as Tactical Marines for transport purposes)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:36 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA

(The_Real_Chris @ Oct. 30 2007,05:17)
QUOTE
* These unit?s formations may have Chimera transport vehicles. Each Chimera costs 25 points. You must take enough Chimera to transport the whole formation if any are taken, but you may not take more than one Chimera per unit in the formation.
- Bit confusing. So if I add 6 infantry to a tank formation i can take 16 chimera? (I know its not, but...)

I used the following when I submitted my army lists to the comp:

Notes: Each company upgrade may be given Chimera transport vehicles at a cost of  40 points each. You may not take more than one Chimera per unit in the company upgrade. The entire company must be transported in Chimeras if  any are taken.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Hojyn
 Post subject: "Change Docs" Posted to Wiki Wiki War
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France
Drop pods: why can't Assault Marines use them?

How about allowing Assault SM to use Rhinos? This would give them a slight boost and allow them to embark in drop pods as well? Theyare probably the weakest SM infantry right now, they sure could use a boost, right?

Has this been discussed before? If so, why was it rejected?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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