Well now that it's lost MWFF, it may not be so abusive.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

err.. they are part of the predator formation list entry?



yes, i have it's hard to do.

Edit i fail at reading

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Can't remember the last time I saw a Land Raider Crusader without a Multi-Melta...

Whilst I understand that some people have a problem with the MWFF, removing an official weapon completely because they don't like the effect it has in game, just doesn't feel right.

The Multi-Melta is 100% part of a LR Crusader. Is there really no way to include it and not break the tank?
How about put it back where it belongs but not give a MWFF attack? (a similar discussion has been going on regarding Tau Crisis Suits and it's been pretty much accepted there)

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

2 Transporters previously cost 200 points in the last version of the list. That's a huge difference compared to a landing craft. They're still 100 points cheaper than an LC in this version, and have the advantage that a critical hit doesn't wipe out the whole formation. They are also practically invincible to AA due to abusing the war engine hit allocation rules.

Also, why are they FF4+? They have far less guns than a normal Thawk.

Hena: Your argument about size doesn't hold up; they are war engines and can barge. Not to mention that people who use Transporters will also likely use the FW thunderhawks as well for consistency.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I understand what your saying Onyx and i do kind of agree (i've got 4 painted and 4 unpainted LD crusaders with multi meltas on them) but the problem is how to balance them against the normal LR, we've been playing around with them for years now, changing the cost hasn't been working as at 125 points each they are still worth it. and when taking out the MWFF attack was put forward it didn't seem right to a lot of people.

I used LR crusaders without the MM now for about 5 games, it seems ok, but before it seem always to help them so much ( this maybe my dice rolling as i tended to get at leased one hit from them MM in every engagement), so what to do?

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Actually no you're wrong; the multi-melta is an often taken upgrade, it's not part of the basic tank and so removing it for balance reasons is perfectly fine.

My siegers got him To the extent I believe we may have restarted the game (or at least I may have wanted to?). Still I seem to remember it being corners and you landing in the space I had left in the corner surrounded by the whole army.


I too am baffled at the anti MMFF as its such a small change. I can't understand how if they are so dominating dropping one MWFF5+ attack to 5+ makes any bloody difference?

Against the optimum target of 4+ armour that's a kill 33% of the time compared to 17% of the time. The margin between brilliance and balance is that slender?

For Reference
EpicUK has the following which I think is pretty transportery and not fighty.


War Engine
Bomber
Save 5+ RA
FF 6+
CC 6+
2x Twin Heavy Bolter 15cm AP4+/AA5+ All round
Damage Capacity 2
Critical Hit Effect. The Thunderhawks control surfaces are damaged. The pilot loses contol and the Thunderhawk crashes to the ground, killing all on board.
Notes: Planetfall, Transport (may carry two of the following units: Rhinos, Hunters, Predators, Razorbacks, Vindicators OR one Land Raider. Plus any transported infantry).
Designer Notes: The entire Thunderhawk Transporter formation is counted as one War Engine for both War Engine transport rule (e.g. one transported formation can be split between multiple aircrafts within one Thunderhawk Transporter formation) and for the allocation of Hits.
Cost 200 for 1, 300 for 2.


And cost 275 or am I missing something? Again I like the EpicUK 4 for 250, +2 for 50 each.

_________________
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

It’s not if you’re using the properly scaled FW model though, which is the size the craft truly is. I think marine playtesting assumptions should avoid factoring in the possible small or large size for the Thunderhawk when assessing the unit and its rules because many people use either size.

OK treated as a one WE for hit-allocations....but how is the damage spreaded then? If i score two hits which aren't saved i have still two 1DC THT.

I would suggest something similar to the Wh40k hit-allocation rule for units of multiple wound models. So for every two unsaved hits one THT is destroyed.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Background wise the Thunderhawk and Thunderhawk Transporter are identically sized. If people are using the smaller SG thunderhawk they should use a converted version of that as the transporter for consistency.

You are giving the transporter a discount for size, but not the normal hawk, despite them being identically sized. Sorry, but that's daft.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread