Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

LatD

 Post subject: LatD
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:46 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (Irisado @ Jan. 14 2010, 12:29 )

In that case, I'm very confused because Greater Daemons get Reinforced armour and an invulnerable save, as does the Chaos Altar, and all of these are daemonic, yet this does not apply to Daemon Engines, so forgive me if I am misconstruing the point being made here, but I cannot see any consistency here at all.

It's not automatically "daemon possession = invulnerable save".  It's never been a formula.

For background, in 40K, it generally takes 2-3 armor penetrations to completely disable a vehicle, so that's roughly what a "kill" in epic equates to.  Daemon possessed vehicles can ignore the light hits, but after 2 or 3 hits there it is still a high probability that the vehicle is disabled.

In other words, daemon possession is not much of a benefit at Epic scale.  A unit with Reinforced Armor is already tough enough that the boost of daemon possession probably doesn't matter.

Whether to make a possessed unit Invulnerable has to be evaluated on how tough you want the unit to be overall.  Maybe it gets IS, maybe not.

For an otherwise lightweight unit, adding IS is a quick, easy way to make it a little bit tougher.  Honestly, a +1 to the armor save would have worked just as well, but IS gives it a little bit more "special" feel.  For some units that had RA, it was already tough enough so nothing was added.  For the really big daemon-possessed engines, because of the lack of shields they needed IS to make them effective so they got 4+RA and IS.

It's the same thing for infantry units.  Some units in 40K have Invulnerable saves which translated into Invulnerable in Epic.  It represents a base level of toughness without being a major boost.  I think all the lesser daemons fall into this category.  OTOH, some infantry units have Invulnerable saves in 40K, but are so tough overall that they warranted RA in Epic and they did not get an Invulnerable Save on top of that.  The 40K-invulnerable is just part of the RA save.  Terminators are an example of that.

The Greater Daemons in epic are War Engines, not the paltry GDs that show up in 40K, so they can't even be compared.  Like the large WE daemon engines, because they don't have shields they need both RA and Invulnerable saves to let hem hold up against armies with multi-TK.

So, again, there was no formula.  It was all done case-by-case.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: LatD
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
Quote: (nealhunt @ Jan. 14 2010, 15:46 )

It's not automatically "daemon possession = invulnerable save".  It's never been a formula.

For background, in 40K, it generally takes 2-3 armor penetrations to completely disable a vehicle, so that's roughly what a "kill" in epic equates to.  Daemon possessed vehicles can ignore the light hits, but after 2 or 3 hits there it is still a high probability that the vehicle is disabled.

In other words, daemon possession is not much of a benefit at Epic scale.  A unit with Reinforced Armor is already tough enough that the boost of daemon possession probably doesn't matter.

Whether to make a possessed unit Invulnerable has to be evaluated on how tough you want the unit to be overall.  Maybe it gets IS, maybe not.

For an otherwise lightweight unit, adding IS is a quick, easy way to make it a little bit tougher.  Honestly, a +1 to the armor save would have worked just as well, but IS gives it a little bit more "special" feel.  For some units that had RA, it was already tough enough so nothing was added.  For the really big daemon-possessed engines, because of the lack of shields they needed IS to make them effective so they got 4+RA and IS.

It's the same thing for infantry units.  Some units in 40K have Invulnerable saves which translated into Invulnerable in Epic.  It represents a base level of toughness without being a major boost.  I think all the lesser daemons fall into this category.  OTOH, some infantry units have Invulnerable saves in 40K, but are so tough overall that they warranted RA in Epic and they did not get an Invulnerable Save on top of that.  The 40K-invulnerable is just part of the RA save.  Terminators are an example of that.

The Greater Daemons in epic are War Engines, not the paltry GDs that show up in 40K, so they can't even be compared.  Like the large WE daemon engines, because they don't have shields they need both RA and Invulnerable saves to let hem hold up against armies with multi-TK.

So, again, there was no formula.  It was all done case-by-case.

As a 40K player as well as an Epic player, I agree with the point you make about kills, and I don't think that we should let 40K influence Epic excessively either, so I do take your point about the effectiveness of Daemonic Possession.

The problem I have, however, is that applying it on an 'ad hoc' basis, which is basically what a case by case basis is, does not work very well in my opinion, as it leads to design inconsistencies which cannot be explained.  You can explain why some Daemon Engines may or may not have reinforced armour, but the very fact that they are all Daemonic surely means that they need to have an invulnerable save, otherwise you would end up with the rather ridiculous situation of some Daemon Engines and Daemonic War Engines being less daemonic than others.

The Lord of Battles is a case in point.  How can we justify, purely in terms of its being daemonic, that is is less daemonic than a Bloodthirster?  In other words, I cannot see, in background terms, how the Bloodthirster can have an invulnerable save, yet the Lord of Battles cannot.  I appreciate the Lord of Battles may not actually get much benefit from an invulnerable save, but the lack of consistency just looks rather strange to my mind, and the same is true of other cases too (e.g. comparing the Plague Tower to the Contagion Tower).

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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