Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Demolisher, Macro or No
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10325		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
Simple: Start high and if it is too powerful make it weaker. So i'm for MW.
Author:  Moscovian [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
I am slightly against it because of the problems it causes over multiple lists.  If there were a way to help the SMs out but leave everything alone I'd be okay with it.

And personally I never start 'high' just because it is harder to take things away from people than it is too give it too them.  If you playtest a list and it is too weak, not only will you get the specific feedback where things faltered but the opponent will be more likely to playtest again. :)
Author:  Reaver [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
Okay, sorry to screw things up so early in the proceedings, but I voted 'Yes' and on further consideration (ie. reading 150+ posts on the issue, and then setting up a quick game of 'Guardians Garrisoned in the Ruins' and tackling them with Tacticals supported by Predators, then Tacticals supported by Vindicators) I've changed my mind - I want to change my vote to 'No'.

However I do this only with the proviso that the Vindicator's speed should change to 30cm to match the other Rhino variants, and to match the SM way of fighting.

So please consider one of those Yeses to be a No, and accept my apologies for dithering!
Regards,
Reaver (making my first foray into rules disputes...)
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
You didn't include an option for

"Option X, but I don't really care provided something reasonable happens soon"

So how could I possibly vote in this poll?  :alien:

...but seems that MW is pretty popular so far... who would have guessed...
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....d217807
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
Why don't you put something like:
Yes: -1
No: +1
in your original post?

Anyhow, up to 9-5 now ;)
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
12-4...

Oops 11-5 given Reaver - but as this is his 'first foray' perhaps he is willing to reconsider...   :blues:
Here I discuss the balance of the MW proposal at this stage (further discussion occurs elsewhere in the same thread and in other threads).

Mosc lists himself as slightly against it...  we can't have rules that are slightly included or not. We've already had years to make up our minds on this Mosc, how about you just pick an outright yes or no if you haven't already  :;):
Author:  Morg [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
It fits the description of the weapon. But I would also like to see a way to avoid changes in the other lists.
Author:  Moscovian [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No

(Markconz @ Aug. 18 2007,18:27)
QUOTE
12-4...

Oops 11-5 given Reaver - but as this is his 'first foray' perhaps he is willing to reconsider... ? :blues:
Here I discuss the balance of the MW proposal at this stage (further discussion occurs elsewhere in the same thread and in other threads).

Mosc lists himself as slightly against it... ?we can't have rules that are slightly included or not. We've already had years to make up our minds on this Mosc, how about you just pick an outright yes or no if you haven't already ?:;):

Well, my mind really is made up in a sense.  My intent is to limit the number of MWs we are adding en toto to the game of Epic to one.  If we can limit it only to the SMs, then I am for it.  If we have to give it to the Baneblade and the Russ then I am against it and vote for an alternative to improving it (any alternative, really - maybe a AP3+/AT3+ IC?)

Sometimes the right answers don't fall into the neat little boxes we build for them, unfortunately. :)

This may be why they never gave the MW to the Demolisher in the first place, incidentally.  Perhaps they could never reconcile the two lists?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
This may be why they never gave the MW to the Demolisher in the first place, incidentally.  Perhaps they could never reconcile the two lists?

I think that in every case, Demolisher-armed vehicles didn't recieve proper playtesting.

- Vindicators obviously weren't tested properly.

- Baneblades may well have been tested (I can't imagine they weren't!), but subsequent gaming has shown that they are very inferior to Shadowswords.

- Leman Russ Demolishers are only slightly underpowered at the moment (And will go to slightly overpowered, in need of a points increase, after gaining MW for their main gun).
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
gaming has shown that they [Baneblades] are very inferior to Shadowswords.

Quoted from E&C, but not to pick on him.  This sentiment has been expressed many times by many different people.

The SHT's are completely different.  Comparing them is about like comparing Russ to Bombards.  People want to do it because they are SHT's, same price, available in the same formation but that's not a sufficient reason when they have such completely different roles in the army.

Baneblades are a medium range, durable, fire support platform.  The closest comparison to Baneblades for the purposes of internal balance are Leman Russ.  When compared to Russ, they are slighly underpowered - about 20-25% more firepower or durability brings Baneblades up to par as compared to Russ.
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
20-25% = 'slightly' underpowered?  ???

I guess it all depends on labels we choose to assign to things. I typically call 5-10% 'slightly'.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Demolisher, Macro or No
20-25% of a single factor.  That equates to ~10% point cost.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/