Quote:
am I stupid to suggest we first try and test some adjustment to these unit before getting on changing something else ?
Quite the opposite actually. It is an intelligent suggestion
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Thunderhawk War Engines http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19643 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Thunderhawk War Engines |
While I am at this, I though I would get some clarity on this as well: Why are Thunderhawks not purchased from the War Engines section of the Marine army list? By placing them in there to fight for space with Thunderbolts and Warhounds, surely it would go a ways to alleviating some of the Marine builds? Especially if the Warhound costs go up... Is there any reason for the opposition to this? |
|
| Author: | Athmospheric [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Well, I already don't like being restricted on titans in an imperial army "for fluff reasons", but I think the air stuff is actually a very fluffy marine force, specially in epic. (...) snipped a rant about marines list. Need to calm down. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Quote: Why are Thunderhawks not purchased from the War Engines section of the Marine army list? Because there is no "war engines" section of the army list. The majority of armies can get core War Engines. There's an "allies" section... |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Evil and Chaos wrote: Because there is no "war engines" section of the army list. The majority of armies can get core War Engines. There's an "allies" section... Surely someone knows how to use the delete key and then spell WAR ENGINES ? If that is the excuse, it is a pretty poor defence. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Athmospheric wrote: but I think the air stuff is actually a very fluffy marine force, specially in epic. And how does placing them in the War Engines section stop this? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Honestly, I think placing Thunderhawks in the Allies' 33% along with the Navy and Titans would be against the background, and also might hurt the balance of the list. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Yet has there not been talk of a nerf for Marines this past week? Already the Warhound costing has been knocked back The idea on upping the cost of Thunderbolts has been knocked back Do people want a change in Marines or are we going to get to this NetEA book with only cosmetic changes that do not even seem to touch on the initial discussions? I am really confused. So many good ideas (I thought) and all knocked back for no real reason. |
|
| Author: | Athmospheric [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
The general consensus idea is not to make air drop list weaker, but more to make ground army better than they are, and I think to lower the prevalence of Titan Legio and Navy Assets, which are felt as "unmarinish" by some. I don't think anyone said that the Thunderhawks are unmarinish. Until now anyway. I don't remember than the initial discussion ever was to make airlists less efficient or harder to build. Rather to give marine more options beside that. I don't see why Thunderhawks should be more restricted than, say, Baneblades or Shadowswords in a guard list, or engines of Vaul in an Eldar list. And apart from you quoting an "initial discussion" that I don't remember, I don't think I've read any reasoning for limiting Thunderhawks amount. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Quote: but more to make ground army better than they are, I have no problem with this - in fact I support it (look at the Imperial Fists list as my dedication to this) Quote: And apart from you quoting an "initial discussion" that I don't remember Did I quote? I must have missed that. Yet let us continue shall we.... How does buying your Thunderhawks from the War Engine section restrict your Air Assault force? How many Thunderhawks are you buying? What it will do I believe is restrict Warhound or Thunderbolt purchases. Now that is a discussion I can quote from... |
|
| Author: | Athmospheric [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
frogbear wrote: (...) Do people want a change in Marines or are we going to get to this NetEA book with only cosmetic changes that do not even seem to touch on the initial discussions? (...) Sorry, I shouldn't have said "quote" but "alluded to" or something to that effect. English is not my first language, all apologies for the mistakes. I personally recall many separate discussions about various changes. As I understood it anyway, I think many of these are in fact still on the table. WH cost upgrade, Vindicator, Preds and LRs price cut, and many more propositions around, like price cut for the tacticals for example. It's certainly not a "every change shot down" situation. And I maintain, if what you want is to limit warhound, put a 0-1 on singleton, don't change the way thunderhawks are added to the list. I agree that unit selection constraints are interrelated, but if we are set about limiting warhounds and thunderbolts, am I stupid to suggest we first try and test some adjustment to these unit before getting on changing something else ? edited for spelling shame. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Quote: am I stupid to suggest we first try and test some adjustment to these unit before getting on changing something else ? Quite the opposite actually. It is an intelligent suggestion
|
|
| Author: | Justiniel [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Hmm, it is an interesting take, after all if you are fielding Titans you would expect a more 'ground pounding' type force, and an air/drop type force wouldn't have the 'heavies'. Would have to be tested plenty to see if it could work. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Ideally we should have an Air-Drop Space Marine List (with no Titans) and a Ground Force Space Marine List (with restricted Imperial Navy, Thunderhawks, Landing Crafts and Spaceships). |
|
| Author: | Athmospheric [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
Why wouldn't air-striking marines work in conjunction with ground forces ? I'd rather have a 2-dimensional list than two single dimensional ones. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thunderhawk War Engines |
In general terms, the idea of restricting a fundamental Marine unit that has been a core part of the list since the beginning to help balance the Marines seems contradictory at best. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|