Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 7
  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Thunderhawk Transporter
rpr
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 16 2008,23:36)
QUOTE
You only have 2x twin heavy bolters for weapons... but the model has 4x twin heavy bolters.

I can't support your stats for this beast until you upgun it to 4x Twin Heavy Bolters, and give them fire arcs (Like the thunderhawk gunship).

I'm in favor of abstracting list of identical weapons with limited fire-arcs to less number of attacks without arcs.

I.e. if the model has 4 limited fire-arc guns at different sides, it could be instead like 2x all-around attack, instead of 4x attacks each with limited fire-arc. Those heavy bolters in Baneblade are an excellent example - better to have like 2x all-around heavy bolter than 1x Forward, 1x Left Arc., 1x Right Arc or something like that...

And same should apply to Thawk too. I'd make it 1x heavy bolter forward, 1x heavy bolter all-around - the distinction between 1x all-around and 1x left arc, 1x right arc is minimal except that it encourages certain "gamey" placements which IMO should be minimized.   (ah I remember the time in SM(?) when LR had firearcs and we spend accountable extra time on pointing them so that both lasguns can fire at the same target...)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Hena @ Mar. 17 2008,06:31)
QUOTE

(Lord Inquisitor @ Mar. 17 2008,01:51)
QUOTE
I think everyone is assuming it can only carry one Land Raider or two other vehicles. Although I've added Thunderhawk Transporters into my Grey Knight list which can carry two Land Raiders each (as there was absolutely no way I could work them into the list otherwise).

Ahha, so you bend there. Have you used it much? Could you take Landing Craft instead of the THT pair? Or are you using it single to drop 2 Crusaders with Terminators?
My point precisely. IMO the THT needs to carry 2x LR or 3x "others" to make the formation viable. Anything less, and it is still effectively limiting the formations availible to "other" vehicles as 2x LRs cannot be incorporated in any formation except as an upgrade to Terminators.

The transport capacity then becomes the equivalent of the Landing Craft, but costs less because it is weaker. You are reducing the chances of losing the entire lot to a single critical, but increasing the chances of hit(s) on the formation as a whole - so should take care to deploy the formation in quieter parts of the battlefield etc.




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
There's no wiggle room to change the transport capacity of the THT... not if you want to keep Epic as an adult-intended reflection of 40k.

Change it too much, and you're just making up your own game.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nicodemus
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland
I am with Hena.

But if his ideas gets shot down, I can always use THT as Proxy for Landing Craft. :)




_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA

(Hena @ Mar. 17 2008,01:31)
QUOTE
Ahha, so you bend there. Have you used it much? Could you take Landing Craft instead of the THT pair? Or are you using it single to drop 2 Crusaders with Terminators?

Oh, I don't mind straying from the model/40K stats if necessary. I'm just saying, if it isn't absolutely vital, then its better to just represent the model faithfully.

For the Grey Knights, who only have Land Raiders, there is no way it could work. Even with two Transporters, you'd only get a formation inside if they were mounted in Crusaders, which I don't want to force people to do because they've got no models, or by allowing transporter formations of up to 4 transporters (which WOULD be obscene!). Although, yes, you could drop a formation in one two-LR-Transporter if they're in power armour or terminators riding crusaders.

However, it is easier for the Grey Knights as they don't have Landing Craft. The ability to air-drop a Terminator formation with Land Raider transports is worth a lot!Grey Knight landing craft just felt all wrong, so the transporters are great as they fulfil that role.

I've only tried them out once or twice a long time ago. I don't have any models made up, unfortunately. I will at some point.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Hena @ Mar. 17 2008,09:44)
QUOTE
You could do that. However I really think that it's easier to change the armour and weapons to make the cost lower than inflate transport size. As it creates it into it's own niche instead of being alternative to LC (eg. mid range transport). So you would have:
- T'hawk: Infantry transport
- T'hawk Transport: Vehicle transport (with Infantry in vehicles)
- Landing Craft: Heavy Transport (both vehicles and infantry in larger amount)

That seems to me working much better than transfixing to exact stats of 40k and creating alternative LC.

Hena

I like the approach of different classes of transport. Essentially, Landing Craft and THawk provide armoured insertion into a "hot" LZ, while THT formation provides a cheaper but more vulnerable alternative to the LC. If we reduce the armour and remove the Battlecannon, is 300 the pair about right?

Also, in order to get 2x LR or 3x "other" vehicles, should the infantry capacity of the THT be reduced from 8x infantry to 6x, or are we happy to leave that part alone?




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Why feel Grey Knight Landing Crafts wrong? They are Space Marines after all.


And what about allowing single Thunderhawk Transporters to reinforce formations still on the table?
eg: Your Terminator Detachment has suffered casualties? Fly in a Land Raider with a fresh Terminator unit in it.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
However, it is easier for the Grey Knights as they don't have Landing Craft. The ability to air-drop a Terminator formation with Land Raider transports is worth a lot!Grey Knight landing craft just felt all wrong, so the transporters are great as they fulfil that role.


I see no reason why Grey Knights shouldn't get landing craft.


Instead, you've basically taken the light transport and doubled its carrying capacity, to make an inferior landing craft.

The Thunderhawk Transport's main role is in airdropping small formations, not large ones.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
I don't really think Grey Knights are likely to have many Landing Craft if any, but in any case they were excluded from the list for the following reasons:
- Grey Knights typically operate in small numbers (not always, otherwise we wouldn't have made them a list for Epic!) - so a Landing Craft is overkill for typical GK operations
- In order to keep that "small, elite" army feel we limited their formation sizes and access to "large scale" vehicles - like the Landing Craft.
- Grey Knights are ultra-specialised and valuble. A Landing Craft just felt like too much of a basket for that many eggs

In all cases it seems much more likely that Grey Knights would deploy their vehicles in smaller landers like THTs. While deploying a single squad and Land Raider with a thunderhawk transporter is too micromanagement for Epic to handle, it seems entirely appropriate for the army. So that's why the transporters. Yes, it's exactly because they're for dropping in small formations - if I could have left the transport capacity as it was, I would have. However, I never found a suitable solution to the issue other than doubling the LR capacity.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Thunderhawk Transporter
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
For the grey knights it makes alot of sense to me anyway.  They are the elite of the elite, and elite forces have a habit of taking existing vehicles and adopting them to their needs.  So they need to carry 2 LR on a T'Hawk- well they've probably got the best artificers in the Imperium, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Boost the engines, modify the load bay and away we go :)

A landing craft is far too overt  for the GK, while a Thawk is smaller, faster, harder to detect and able to land in more restricted DZ's.  Plus you have the advantage of being able to drop fully loaded tanks- just imagine one flying in, not actually hitting the deck but hovering  ~5m above it, dropping the LR's then pulling out fast.  Very special forces :)

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
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 7
  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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