Scions of Iron, v0.8 |
|
vanvlak
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8  Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
|
|
Downloaded. Thanks Hena.
I rush-read through it, so I might have missed this, but is there any word on colours/markings?
_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
vanvlak
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
|
|
Thanks Hena - I'd missed that thread. D'oh. Humm,I suspect any markings I could come up with would be designed to be doable by me in Epic scale.... i.e. no markings at all!
_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
Some points on the overlook:
1.) Is it intended to have twin heavy bolters on Thunderhawk Transporters AP4+ AT4+?
2.) TH Transporters have two THB arrays on each side in the IA book. so you could get off 4 AP4+ shots but not a single anti tank shot. Maybe we should keep that to stay in line with the stats provided by the model and FW.
3.) Missed the discussion, but why Helios formations?
4.) Same for 5+ armor save for the transporter?
5.) If the TH Transporter are kept with this stats, maybe we could allow three of them to transport bigger formations (and get rid of the discussion how a mix of LR and Rhino chassis is transported with a landing craft.)
my 0,002 cents after a long working day 
Soren
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
ad 2.) For an armor army list it?s a considerable flaw to get off no AT shot with a unit. I think this is punishment enough . If I add the armor value to this argument..... Maybe we could raise the firepower to AP3+/AA 3+ and name it "heavy bolter defence array" or something else. But this is not a priority point to discuss I guess.
A comparable unit to this would be the Orca I think. Nearly same armor value but some more flexible Firepower.
ad4.) Uh, so you can take 3 THTransporters as one unit? Simply didn?t see that.
Soren
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soren
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:52 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
|
Don?t Forget to note: one Land Raider or any variant of it. Some guys are really counting the letters in tourneys. 
_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:56 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
While I'm close to being in favour of these stats, I'm dead set against changing the armour rating to 5+ RA.
This beast has an armour profile that is identical to a Thunderhawk Gunship... so you're contradicting the background by giving it a different armour value.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Evil and Chaos
|
Post subject: Scions of Iron, v0.8 Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:15 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
But it would be just making excuses on the fact that I downgrade the save on game reasons.
As you say, you're downgrading the armour stats because that's the unit type you want in the army... it's unrepresentative of the background & 40k rules and I won't support it.
I'm yet to be swayed on the nessesity of twin-linking two twin-linked weapon systems.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
