Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Space Wolves 2.2

 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
After sleeping on it and getting some more advice I've been reconsidering the change.

My vision of them isn't one of raving lunatics. I don't want World Eater clones as I think the Blood Claws should be a little more directable on the battlefield, so I'm not comfortable just making them all about the engage. A sole +1 to engage means that's all they are.

What I'm considering however is the that +1 to Double be situational for the support element. i.e.

+1 to Double if within range to effect a support fire role to another SW pack in position to perform an Engage action. ?

Not sure about all the possible connotations for the exact wording yet though.

I'll leave the Air transports as they are - 225/375.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Good luck with that.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Thanks. It just needs the wording tinkered with.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:03 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
frogbear wrote:
nealhunt wrote:
Like what?

This would mean going through the whole thing which I am not going to do.

You said they should be "so much more." That's a general flavor/feel comment and I asked for elaboration in that spirit.

Is there any other flavor things you'd like to see incorporated besides some sort of pack spirit?

Quote:
Neal, I do not wish to de-rail this thread, however how would you expect the World Eaters to fight?

I wasn't implying they should be different. I was just pointing out the underlying causation for your observation that SW and WoE are similar.

Quote:
My question to you: how is this list any different from a Marine list? How will it play differently?

These are not my questions to answer. They're Dobbsy's. I've given my opinion for him to take into account if he likes but in the end it's his call.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:25 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Dobbsy wrote:
+1 to Double if within range to effect a support fire role to another SW pack in position to perform an Engage action.

I think this is a nice idea, but is likely too conceptual to be nailed down into a functional mechanic.

Normally, it's best to work with a hard mechanic, even if it diverges slightly from the overall concept. As an example, if the idea is some sort of combined action in assaults to reflect an aggression and pack instinct, the combined assault rules are fairly "hard" in terms of being well-tested and relatively clear, so tweaking them might be a viable path. Spitballing from there...

SW could have access to the "expanded command" ability being used for Prometheus and Damocles so they have lots of opportunity for combined assaults. Maybe the Battle leaders have Commander with the extended range instead of just normal command. If you really wanted to go crazy with it, they could have lots of Commander units, with the Rune Priest and Wolf Priest might have Commander (without extended range) in addition to their normal abilities.

Another option might be to make it easier to activate a combined assault. Instead of using the Commander formation's Initiative roll, you can use the best Initiative of any of the formations.

And, again, if you wanted to go really crazy, you could give them both extended range and "take the best" activation.


On the downside, maybe that would come across as pack teamwork, or maybe it would create the feel of some sort of piranha-like combined assault feeding frenzy. Or it might encourage "popcorn" style assault groups so they could combine and split off as needed for maximum flexibility while minimizing the impact on activation count for combining assaults.

Maybe that's okay, maybe not. It's just an idea. In any case, the point is stick with hard mechanics and avoid "if/then" situations for applying any sort of modifier unless they are crystal clear.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Command has a 15cm radius? (Copy co-ord fire.)

And the old command suggestion - the defender can choose to intermingle formations within command range. Soa defensive pack measure as didn't the SW have some kind of counter attack capability in the old 40k?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:59 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
Not only in old Wh40k. STill in the current Codex all Space Wolfes have "Counter Charge" as special ability.
I really like your suggestion :)

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
I would support "Commander on the defence" over any other special rule. That is a good one. Great idea TRC

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
frogbear wrote:
I would support "Commander on the defence" over any other special rule. That is a good one. Great idea TRC


In other words, the ability to declare yourself intermingled?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
That is correct. We used to play this until we realised this was not an official rule :P

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
frogbear wrote:
We used to play this until we realised this was not an official rule :P

This is off-topic, but how useful was it? We proposed it as an experimental rule for the 2008 review, but it was a late addition and didn't get much testing so we cut it. I'd really like to hear how it went.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
It was unique from what I remember as the attacker would announce their Commander and then the opponent would stand back and decide whether the risk of adding extra troops was worth it.

It added another level of strategy, and made one think (as an attacker) whether an Engage would be worth it based on the probability of the opponent using the rule.

It does however increase the ability of support or non-CC formations to resist a charge as they start to keep formations within 5cm just for this purpose. If the attacker does not select the Commander ability, usually it was a cause for the defender to call on it. Due to this, it makes the attacking Commander ability that less useful :P

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Could the two ideas work together - albeit with a smaller radius of say 10cm? So, a 10cm Co-ord attack/defensive intermingled idea? My preference is to be a more "offensive-oriented" list but I'd imagine that SWs work both ways when it comes to pack mentality.

The only problem then is Claw packs still - quoting Frogbear - "Get around a 2+ initiative...." as the commander would call it and they just activate.

My other concerns are firstly, that this rule will drive up the cost for SW leaders which means you'll see leaders used less as people try to keep their activation count up; or worse if you apply it list-wide wouldn't the cost of formations need to rise?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Quote:
The only problem then is Claw packs still - quoting Frogbear - "Get around a 2+ initiative...." as the commander would call it and they just activate.

Not an issue. They still have to get up there :D

Quote:
Could the two ideas work together

I would prefer the answer to this be no however I would support this over any +1 to activation rule

Quote:
My other concerns are firstly, that this rule will drive up the cost for SW leaders which means you'll see leaders used less as people try to keep their activation count up; or worse if you apply it list-wide wouldn't the cost of formations need to rise?


Honestly I do not think a price rise would be necessary for the foot-slogger force.

As stated previously however, I would like to see Air Assault transports go up by another 25 points. I think it is justified.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 2.2
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
The ability isn't a problem if there is a dissadvantage with the list. One 'obvious' one is having less activations due to bigger pack sizes and compulsory commanders.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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