 
|
Page 6 of 7 |
[ 96 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
| The_Real_Chris |
|
|||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
Do you know what else that is called  Finally, the planes missles are limited to 45cm in E:A - and the proposed is to have all weapons reduced to 30cm. |
Nope, missiles still 45cm, I like the idea personally of such support weapons encouraging brave use of markerlight units.
Planes don't translate directly over well, in part because they aren't a core part of 40k and people have mixed views on how well they work (everyone can shoot the plane or something as well there, I admit to being a bit vague).
Then people wish to have all the weapons on it have the same effect as the ground based versions - ignoring the fact being air carried does change how a weapon performs.
Go on then, everyone else can have the last word otherwise it will never stop again
_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
| Honda |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
I said that the second option had promise. I also said that the 30 cm range for the Railcannon wasn't acceptable and then asked what the estimation for the cost at 45 cm range would be? I think the middle ground could (my emphasis) could occur between reducing the save and leaving the range as is, not reducing it. If that is not enough to get the other side to the table to talk points, then I'll remove the offer and let CS roll the dice as to the outcome. Part of successful negotiations is realizing when a compromise is possible. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment |
| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Tactica |
|
|||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
Looking at this download (nauty I know) it says 10 10 10 for its amour. I don't understand 40k stats but it says 10 10 10 for the barracuda as well.[/quote] In 40K - superheavy armor at 10/10/10 means better armor than vehicle armor at 10/10/10. Reason: Superheavy and Vehicle are defined terms with rules behind them. Example, they have different damage charts in 40K. A superheavy can actually repair damage if things go well. Then other lists made their planes closer to Core Design in effectiveness - ergo, behind the times. |
Do you know what else that is called
The nature of E:A's game development whether we like it or not - jervis approved it, its in writing, see swordwind?
[quote]Finally, the planes missles are limited to 45cm in E:A - and the proposed is to have all weapons reduced to 30cm.
Nope, missiles still 45cm, I like the idea personally of such support weapons encouraging brave use of markerlight units.
Planes don't translate directly over well, in part because they aren't a core part of 40k
Interestingly enough, GW would challenge your interpretation in that
1. Barracuda was directly mentioned and defined in the previous Tau codex as being an air superiority fighter.
2. The Skyray (AA vehicle) is in the new Tau Empires codex as a base vehicle and main tank with AA option.
3. battle reports in White Dwarf are starting to include planes in batreps.
Some might say GW appears to be moving to embrace aircraft in core design despite your opinion.
[quote]and people have mixed views on how well they work (everyone can shoot the plane or something as well there, I admit to being a bit vague).
Then people wish to have all the weapons on it have the same effect as the ground based versions - ignoring the fact being air carried does change how a weapon performs.
LOL - I get the feeling you argue for the sake of conversation sometimes.
Make a series of rules for craft which some armies have a lot of access too and others don't have much access too - I don't care what it is... you will get "people that have mixed views on how well they work."
Your statement here is not only vague, it's also irrelivant.
Fact is - Aircraft work in 40K better than the way they work in Epic by the following factual measures my friend...
1. In 40K, there's an answer for dealing with aircraft period. Even *IF* the general did not have the forsight to take an appropriate amount of flak or AA counter measures. - problem in epic, not 40K.
2. In 40K, there's an answer for AA moving rediculously - and firing at aircraft - problem in epic, not 40K.
3. In 40K, there's an answer for aircraft having the same weaponry, ranges, stats, and damage as ground formations with the same skills and weapons - problem in epic, not in 40K.
If you would like me to extrapolate on the above 3 points...
Typical ground formation ranges in 40K are reduced range by 12" when/if they attempt to fire at aircraft.
For perspective:(and if memory serves on all ranges)
Tau Railgun = 108" range normally would go to 96" range.
IG Battlecannon = 72" range normally would go to 60" range
Chaos Lascannon = 48" range normally would go to 36" range.
Marine Bolter = 24" range normally would go to 12" range.
IG Laspistol = 12" range normally would go to 0" range.
Algorithm for firing in 40K
Static "7" - your unit's Ballistic Skill(BS) = roll to hit
BS for IG is 3, BS for marine is 4
Example:
7-3 = 4+ to hit (IG).
7-4 = 3+ to hit (Marine).
If you have an AA mounted weapon, you CANNOT move and fire your weapon. On the other hand, you don't don't suffer from a 'to hit' penalty when firing at aircraft either.
Also, Any ground formation in range, after reduction(s), can opt to fire at the aircraft (if its within range). The caveat, In 40K - you don't get to premeasure. Said ground formation also needs a 6 to hit the aircraft. AA mount vehicles hit aircraft just as easy as they would hit ground formations - so they have a significant bonus when it comes to firing at AA.
In 40K, once you've hit, you then roll a d6 and add your strength of weapon to determine if you've glanced or penetrated armor. (a level of damage you might say)
Once glanced or penetrated, you roll on either a glance or penetrating hit chart to determine the result of the hit.
Basically on a glancing hit, it takes a 6 to blow the plane up (unless you imobilize it - which many armies have auxilary damage control systems to eliviate).
Basically on a penetrating hit, a 4+ on the chart will blow it up.
Superheavies have more resilency as they have glancing and penetrating superheavy charts. They don't have immobilization, just speed reductions and what not. They also have a catastrophic damage chart - which one result is - Fire Control Repair: Superheavy gains one hit back!
Go on then, everyone else can have the last word otherwise it will never stop again
As if... LOL...
_________________
Rob
| Tactica |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
.| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Tactica |
|
|||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
Don't know for sure, but doesn't go back to - I said the AX-1-0 was neutered in E:A, although perhaps justified... and you countered. (Why I'll never know). Regardless of other list precidents - the aforementioned point still remains. Well, the last time I played 40k was 9? years ago so I just can't comment on the system, but one thing I can't help but laugh about - Battlecannon hit aircraft? |
I suppose you missed the rest - about how 40K deals with aircraft better... anyway...
I didn't want to get into all the rules... I only gave what was needed to prove my point.
First, Battlecannons are not only for Leman Russ.
Second, the Thunderhawk Superheavy Aircraft has a Battlecannon you'll recall.
Furthermore, anything that utilizes a blast marker (large or small) cannot fire at aircraft in 40K.
In order to achieve an exception, the weapon system must have an Anti-Aircraft mount. To date, Battle cannons are not mounted on Anti-Aircraft mounts unless you are using a VDR vehicle (Vehicle Design Rules) which require opponent's permission.
So no, Battlecannons cannot typically fire at fliers in 40K either TRC.
BTW: Zoanthropes aren't very good at AA in 40K. No AA mount.
Guess the guys in the 40K dev figured that one out too... not to bad of a aircraft system after all in 40K, eh? Looks like 40K is a better precident for Aircraft rules than Epic is by your measure.
(I'm trying to envisage a Panzer 4 shooting at a Typhoon.)
At least I know not to bother with 40k again!
Your commentary will be missed. Safe travels and God speed
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
| Markconz |
|
|||||||
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| Ginger |
|
|||||
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm Posts: 5483 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
) - I think you are arguing (reasonably convincingly) that the air rules mechanisms in 40K are somewhat different from those in E:A. If this is the case, it does not seem logical to cite 40K air rules as a basis for supporting the TS stats in EA (with regards the 45cms range for example) - you can't have it both ways.| Tactica |
|
|||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
LOL - I think you are arguing (reasonably convincingly) that the air rules mechanisms in 40K are somewhat different from those in E:A. |
No question, different game.
If this is the case, it does not seem logical to cite 40K air rules as a basis for supporting the TS stats in EA (with regards the 45cms range for example) - you can't have it both ways.
That was not the point of my post or my intention. Let me give you a quick summary which leads us up to the post you are commenting on.
TRC was on one of his AX-1-0 rampages.... Dobbsy got frustrated as we've heard everything from further reduce the armor, increase the points, reduce the range, eliminate TK, take it to one shot... etc... I agreed with Dobbsy.. the suggestions are becoming absurd for us Tau fans - considering what the plan is really meant to be in core design.
The AX-1-0 is already quite neutered. That statement was something I made many pages ago. TRC didn't like that statement, specifically I said the AX-1-0 is neutered from core design... In that same post, I also said that it does need to be dumbed down from core design to align with E:A... (i.e. v4.3.3 seems adequate statistically).
TRC then challengest hat the AX-1-0 has been neutered from Core design...
So although I'm not tryng to get the plane to be any better than what it is, and I'm not lobbying anything, I'm just responding to TRC's challenge. He's wrong, the plane is dumbed down from core design.
I then presented how the AX-1-0 was indeed neutered as he asked.
He didn't respond once the info was provided.
He chose to only comment about armor 10/10/10... so I futher had to explain that one point to him...
He then digressed and made the claim that 40K aircraft rules were inferrior to E:A. He then used that as a basis for his argument that we cannot take 40K planes and convert them over to E:A. Further trying to defend some stance rather than backing off his original challenge.
So I further had to tell him how he was wrong - again. 40K air rules work quite well.
He then wanted to pick out one thing... battlecannons out of my example to try and comment on.
I then had to explain that I didn't give him all the details, just enough to prove my point. I further explained how Aircraft rules in 40K cover that as well... he didn't respond.
All the while - all of this is irrelivent. The AX-1-0 is neutered in E:A from core design... whether TRC likes it or not - its fact. It was intentionally done for balance. Us Tau players only want to give so much. Its going to get to the point to where it's not a SHT or Titan hunter pretty soon. Yes, it has the capability to waste multiple marines with one blast marker shot too in 40k... its fully deserving of the current profile. Maybe the points are quite right, but its most definitely deserving of the current profile - and then some.
My point is NOT to say that it needs MORE than v4.3.3... Not at all in fact. Although points may be an issue, statistically the plane is working quite well IMHO in its current dumbed down fashion. Many of us just don't want to see it get worse.
We definitely don't want to a reduction based upon flawed logic. I was only responding to TRC to clarify the flawed logic and erroneous claims.
At any rate, I do agree that the TS AX-1-0 cannot be what it is in 40K. I make no claim that it should be. Hopefully that is clear.
You also seem to be suggesting that you prefer aspects of the 40K system over that in EA - is that true?
I love both games. They both have similarities, and Epic is a derivative of 40K whether Epic fans want to hear that or not. Without 40K, there'd be no epic.
Its true that 40K does things better than epic. The inverse can also be said. In this particular case, 40K deals with fliers much better - that's true.
I would like to know, as I am trying to find ways of improving the EA air rules, and am open to suggestions
Well, don't want to bore the group to tears. To understand the 40K flier rules, you have to understand the base game. That would take some time. I'd recomend some off line research on the topic Ginger.
Finally, keep it up guys - we can get to P18 yet to fulfill Honda's dream / nightmare
(well I had to see if I could have the last word anyway)Ginger
I'm about done with the whole AX-1-0 topic - regardless of what CS desides. Defending core design at nauseum is silly and taxing. It typically only serves to educate the challengers of the list, not the fans IMHO.
It takes a terrible amount of time and enjoyment out of this process for me.