 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
Determination of unit type |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type  Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
For those interested in following or giving input regarding guidelines for future development there is what I think is a good discussion going on the SG boards in this thread:
http://www.specialist-games.com/forum/t ... PIC_ID=980
I'd like to hear what the brain trust around here thinks, since many of you don't frequent the SG boards.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Da Warboss
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Tennessee
|
|
I think you've done a pretty good job with labeling things.
I think this is just a common sense issue though.
Base things as though they were 40K and we get close enough.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
cx2
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:20 pm
Posts: 74
|
IMHO:
Any infantry hit by a lascannon would be fried pretty much no question of that. However if you have 3-7 infantry per stand one infantryman getting fried won't do much to the stand as a whole. Plus at long range you'd have a bugger of a time hitting any sort of infantry. Infantry can spread out, and AP weapons can fire a barrage of shots in the enemy's direction (either fire rate or blast as in missile launchers).
Tyranids are an issue and here's my opinion on armour. Does the unit have vehicle grade armour and the size to go with it? If so is it completely covered by this armour, or just partially? If a unit had tough armour or carapace, but had either an open top or an area with lesser armour than LV would work. If the unit is too small to be compared with vehicles then reinforced armour as in terminators is probably best.
If battle suits have consistent armour levels then I would guess good armour as infantry, possibly with reinforced armour, would be most appropriate. The light vehicle classification to my mind represents inconsistent armour protection.
I find the idea of -1 to hit LVs with AP interesting though. Represent bullets pinging off the side of an assault bike? 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:31 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I find the idea of -1 to hit LVs with AP interesting though. |
They already have boosted armor saves to represent their "dodginess." Much cleaner mechanics with the same sort of effect.
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
cx2
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:20 pm
Posts: 74
|
|
Fair enough. I didn't say I wanted it included, I just said I liked the mental image of the attack bike with bullets bouncing off.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Determination of unit type Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:19 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Many of us however disagree that armor upgrades accounts accurately for the negative hit received from 40K infantry to Epic LV status.
Also, as precident is set for other units converting from 40K to epic, we feel there should be some congruency to other armies and their units as they go through the 40K => epic conversion.
My perspective is represented in NH's linked threads already.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
