| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
|
Hey guys, I've just moved into a new house last week so my internet use is limited right now... interesting debate!
Let's see now:
On the Sniper bit: The biggest issue I have with Sniper is that it lets you pick out characters from the rest of the unit.
This can be a factor. In one of our playtest games I managed to snipe the SC's transport out from under him.
The enemy SC did pass his following armour save, but the point remains that it is not just theoretically possible.
I personally would have picked one of those regiments from dan abnets books for name recognition, but its your list - to desend into acronims - DWWFY
EDIT: We picked the Tallarns largely because they're a known user of Tank Regiments (Several appear in the various Imperial Armour books for example), plus you've got the whole Desert Rats theme too.
I'd be OK with the prospect of lance-based lasers as well, though that seems to make them under-powered against transports considering their awesome kill-power against vehicles.
Aye. This weapon is of extreme power (It is described as penetrating Titan armour with ease IIRC).
It is a sniping tank.
As TRC says, it's a Tank Destroyer, an important consideration.
I suggest going and reading about German StuG's and similar to get a feel for how these things were used.
If I recall rightly, the usual method of using Tank Destroyers was for them to operate alone, in concealed positions for great lengths of time, wait until they spot a target, kill it, and then flee to a new position before the enemy tanks come into range to strike back.
Now, in Epic, this couldn't really work... because you'd be looking at having formations of 1 Destroyer Tank Hunter buzzing around... and in general formations of 1 is something to avoid...
So, I chose to go with an abstraction, meaning that this 6-tank formation might have a Destroyer assigned to support it, and while in the 'real world' it would be tucked away somewhere lending support, as a mechanics-nessesity it moves and fights in coherency with its parent formation.
So anyways, that was one concession that had to be made to the rules system.
The other was its method of attack.
Macro Weapons couldn't be targetted specifically against LV/AV/WE's.
Lance wasn't powerful enough to represent the strength of the weapon (It should basically flatten lesser vehicles like Rhinos or Chimerae).
So again, as another abstraction I went with Sniper, as this reduces the enemy's armour save by -1 universally, and also somewhat colourfully changed the mode of operation from being a direct fire weapon into a weapon that brought with it the risk of command tanks (etc) being hit by the Tank Hunter weapon.
So all-in-all, I'd have preferred a direct fire MW attack, but since that can also target infantry it wasn't appropriate.
So that's my writer's notes on the Tank Hunter anyway. 
Also as a final consideration, note the general lack of AT-type weapons in the Krieg list.
Indeed perhaps disrupt is a better idea considering the disruption and fear they cause. Range 100cm AT2+ Disrupt could be an option. Or just stick with the somewhat predictable MW3+ or MW4+
Disrupt, while psychologically appropriate, doesn't really tally with the sheer power of the Destroyer's main gun. It's supposed to be the most powerful gun mounted on a Leman Russ chassis (And that means it has to be more powerful than the Vanquisher's AT2+ main gun).
Seriously though, if it were to be changed, what could you do to distinguish the Destroyer from the Vanquisher without using MWs or special rules? Surely there is a simple solution within the confines of existing rules.
I hope so.
|
|
