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

Marine Suggestions
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Marine Suggestions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Remember, a turn of epic represents approx 15 minutes of real time, any Thunderhawk slowly skimming around the battlefield is likely to get popped out of the sky.

I'm slowly coming around to the idea that a Thunderhawk Interceptor might be possible.

From a design point of view, to make the THawk a decent interceptor, I'd remove the THawk's dorsal cannon and replace it with a dedicated AA system (Like a Hydra's quad-guns, for example).





Oh yeah,

Techmarines should be added, and allow any formation they're attached to to re-roll one failed Vehicle armour save per game turn.

Apothecaries should be added, and allow any formation they're attached to to re-roll one failed Infantry armour save per game turn.


Oh and Whirlwinds should get the commander upgrade back, since with Techmarines available there'd be a reason for them to be there.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Marine Suggestions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:17 am 
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
I use Techmarines to representade Librarians.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
semajnollissor
 Post subject: Marine Suggestions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
I don't think any more characters should be added unless you use them as an excuse to inject needed ablities into the list. I mean, if we decide SMs need an extra MW attack here or there, but not necessarily the leader or invulknerable save ability at the same time.

Also, I am strongly against a "fighter" thunderhawk. I don't think that it would fit the style of the T-hawk or of the game. Why not just introduce that upsized land speeder that FW makes. I would bet that will be the backbone of SM fighters when FW comes out with its air rules.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Marine Suggestions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
So it lights burners and does a powered turn helped by its vectored thrust (and no doubt the main engines have directional thrust, hell we have that now). Remember the crew are more sturdy than other pilots so such manovers they can take better. All the while the turrets are tracking and firing.

_________________
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  
 
semajnollissor
 Post subject: Marine Suggestions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Yes, well, I realize all of the "real world" concerns that dictate that a less massive object requires less energy to change velocity (speed+direction) than a more massive object can be conveniently overcome with standard sci-fi mechanisms, but...

The standard in the game (up until now) is that smaller aircraft are more manueverable: lightning -> thunderbolt -> marauder; nightwing -> phoenix -> vampire; etc. I doubt a no-transport, all-guns-and-engine-nozzles version of a T-hawk can lose enough mass to actually change its size catagory. Certainly, it won't look any smaller. I guess you could take the old brick-hawks and call them something new.

That's why, from a philosophical POV, I am opposed to a fighter bomber T-hawk.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 7
  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


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