Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Demolisher, Macro or No
Yes 55%  55%  [ 22 ]
No 38%  38%  [ 15 ]
Other 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 40

Demolisher, Macro or No

 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:44 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Ah ok I see what mean.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
about 20-25% more firepower or durability brings Baneblades up to par as compared to Russ.


I'd say that's pretty underpowered as compared to a Shadowsword. :)

Of course, not in a direct comparison, but in their own specific areas, there are few more reasonably priced competitors for a 200 point Shadowsword, while the Baneblade has plenty of cheap, more effective alternatives.

So in summation, I shouldn't have mentioned the Shadowsword, and just left it at 'Baneblades are underpowered'. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I guess you're counting characters too? Then you should think about that SM charakters are only availablye once per detachment.
Rare is a formation with multiple CCMW characters in the other armies too.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:42 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Well at least that reinforces what I said about Marines and Guard not being the real problem.

Personally I think that ERC change to MW barrage was problematic, but apparently it had support...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Because Feral Titans were considered underpowered before... :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
LAtD have abilities to get MW (Hellcannons) in fragile units. Now you give them the ability to stenghten their coven futher with MW you cannot suppress or eliminate easily. YES, for me that is a major advantage to this list.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:03 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Aug. 23 2007,07:10)
QUOTE
So adding MW to unit which adds it to LatD isn't a problem?

No.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....d218089

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:16 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
General comments relating to the issue. Ie it's not a big deal IMO.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Demolisher, Macro or No
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:00 am
Posts: 154
Location: Kirkkonummi, Finland
I broke MW/TK into CHAR/INF/LV/AV/WE(SHT)/WE(Titan)/AC categories as it gives better spreadout than plain sum of guns. Numbers below are counted from unit entries that have or could take MW and/or TK weapon, not weapon entries(as Hena did(? or then one of us made some counting errors) for units as titans and shts/gds twist numbers easily. Numbers shown in brackets are (Assault/Ranged). Spaceships were ignored.

Numbers are from
Space Marine, Steel Legion and Orcs from Rulebook
Biel Tan 1.8
Feral Orcs and Siegemasters from Swordwind
Black Legion and LatD from Vault
Tau 4.4.1
Tyranids 8.3

Note! If unit has both MW and TK that are both ranged or assault, only TK is noted as it is still one unit.

                     CHAR INF    LV     AV   WE(s) WE(t)  AC  
SMarine MW   (1/0) (1/0) (1/1) (1/0) (0/0)   (0/1) (0/0)
SMarine TK     (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0)   (0/1) (0/0)
Steel Le MW   (1/0) (2/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0)   (0/1) (0/0)
Steel Le TK     (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/1) (0/1)   (0/1) (0/0)
Orcs MW         (1/0) (0/0) (0/0) (3/0) (0/0)   (0/3) (0/0) Supa St and gargants counted as WE(t)
Orcs TK           (0/1) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0)   (2/3) (0/0)
Biel Tan MW    (1/0) (3/3) (0/0) (1/0) (1/2)   (0/1) (0/0) Avatar was counted as WE(s)
Biel Tan TK      (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/1)   (2/2) (0/0)
B Legion MW   (1/0) (1/0) (0/0) (2/0) (2/3)   (0/2) (0/0) Greater Demons counted as WE(s)
B Legion TK     (0/0) (0/1) (0/0) (0/0) (1/0)   (1/1) (0/0)
LatD MW         (0/0) (3/1) (0/0) (1/2) (0/0)   (1/0) (0/0) Greater Demons counted as WE(s)
LatD TK           (0/0) (1/0) (0/0) (0/0) (3/2)   (1/0) (0/0)
Feral Orc MW  (1/1) (0/0) (1/0) (0/0) (0/0)   (0/1) (0/0)
Feral Orc TK    (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (1/0)   (1/0) (0/0)
Siege M MW    (1/0) (2/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0)   (0/0) (0/0)
Siege M TK      (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/1) (0/1)   (0/0) (0/0)
Tau MW           (0/0) (3/1) (0/0) (0/0) (0/1)   (0/0) (0/1) All tau WEs were counted as WE(s), even tough manta is huge.
Tau TK             (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/2)   (0/0) (0/1)
Tyranids MW   (1/0) (1/0) (1/0) (3/0) (1/1)   (0/2) (0/0)
Tyranids TK     (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (0/0) (2/0)   (3/0) (0/0)

                     CHAR  INF    LV     AV    WE(s)  WE(t)  AC  
Total MWs       8/1   16/5  3/1   12/2  4/11    1/11    0/1
Total TKs         0/1    1/1   0/0    0/2  10/8     10/8    0/1

As can be seen, ranged MWs/TKs among LV/AV are rare. Same could be said from every category except WEs.
LV range has only land speeder.
In AV range, only deathstrikes(TK), hellcannons(MW) and silver towers(MW) have ones. If IGs would be inspected as one, then there would be only one TK.

Changing demolisher cannon to MW will add 4 ranged MWs to AV section above.

...and now we want to change demolisher to MW. So, if we keep fluff and count armies that can have vehicles with demolisher we add ranged MW to AV section of 4 armies. (Space Marines, Siegemasters, Steel Legion, Lost and the Damned)

I dont think that this is right way to fix weakish SM unit so I will ask again...

How come MW is better than speedup, walker, IC and FF?

Still, I havent been convinced. Effects to units with Vindicator addons, other armies, number of MWs available, the whole package. I wont take lame excuses as less typing, easier fix, wished lack-of-MW-patching...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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