Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 

focused debate
Steve54
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:12 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
Isn't this forum -the adeptus astartes area, taking on the worst elements of the old SG forums  - a lot of polls etc on avariety of topics without any real progress or focus on issues that need to be debated.

As far as I can see there is no need to change the recommended unit alterations that were developed and playtested in the old forum and which I, and I am sure many others, have been using with no problems for over a year.

1 Vindicators
- speed increased to 25cm
- demolisher cannon stats - added 'AND small arms, extra attack(+1), ignore cover

2 Attack Bikes
- speed increased to 35cm
- changed from Light Vehicle to Mounted Infantry

3 Dreadnoughts
- formation of 4 dreadnoughts with drop pods for 200pts added (drop pods require spacecraft) upgrades-commander

4 Land Raiders
- reduced to 375 points

I cannot see why these need to be debated or altered from these recommended changes
IMHO what this forum would be best used to debate is changes to the ATSKNF rules, changes to hunter availability and development of variant lists

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
Steve

In part I agree with you about focusing the efforts of this forum on ATSKNF and varient list. However what we are not seeing at present is a time frame for authorised changes to the list to represent previous discussion. What we aim to do here is to raise discussion about these topics and to focus peoples ideas so that the Army Champion can take their opions on board. I am not aware of the timeline for the ERC to deliver on changes to existing rules and would like to provide some information backed with statistics to the AC. We have not heared from the SM AC for some time and I fear that we are not going to see changes to the list. You may already be using the changes discussed last year, but they are no good when it comes to a tournament game. All we are after is some forward movement and some real information to work with.

With reguards to ATSKNF, please start a discussion here by all means. There are several pieces of discussion currently floating around in different areas. Focus them with your own ideas and lets get talking.

The varient list are a work in progress, there are currently, Blood Angels, Salamanders and Space Wolves. Get in there and post away on those, or if you would like to discuss a different chapter list, put it up and lets have a crack at it. I for one will be looking at the Black templars in the future, once I have completed painting for the summer and I can settle down into reading and modifying a list for the boards.

Cheers
CAL

I look forward to posting on your initiated threads.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:20 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Steve:  Those were CrimsonFury's recommendations, but they are over a year old and a lot of discussion has gone on since then.  I don't think all of those will make it to being official.

In particular, the Vindicator cannon cannot be changed without changing both the Leman Russ Demolisher stats and the Baneblade stats.  I am pretty sure that's not going to happen.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Sure we can change the 'Vindicator cannon'.  It's a different gun!  If it's listed as a Demolisher Cannon in the Vindicator unit description, then we need to change it to a 'Vindicator cannon'.  Problem solved.  OTOH, the Baneblade needs some improvements, too.  I don't think LRuss Demolishers need an up, though.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:17 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I don't know enough about the 40K background to say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure the Demolisher cannon is the same on all the imperial vehicles, which would mean we can't arbitrarily change it like we have been doing with non-40K vehicles.

In any case, I did propose changing it and downgrading the FF on the Russ Demolisher to make up the difference.  That seems to take care of the most stuff with the least fuss to me, but the idea never gained any traction.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
While it's defined as a Demolisher cannon in 40k, it wouldn't be impossible to change the weapon name.  FW even makes different ammo for the Vindicator cannon versus the Demolisher cannon.  

Nobody wants to hear about a favorite unit getting a power decrease, which is probably why the IG crew wasn't happy.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
fuseboy
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:20 am
Posts: 23
I'm not arguing for the bonus one way or another, but something to consider is that the same weapon could easily have different effectiveness when in different hands and used with different tactics.  The weapon stats aren't for a single shot, but for a turn's worth of firing in conjunction with the tactical approach of the type of unit carrying it.

Consider the relative CC values you'd give to Space Marines and Imperial Guard infantry, both armed with "pointy sticks".

Even the psychological impact of the weapon comes into play, too.  Imperial Guard might blast an enemy bunker from the safest distance where the weapon is effective, and preferably from where they're relatively safe from return fire.  They'll do damage mostly from direct hits or near misses.

Imagine Space Marines, on the other hand using the same weapon in an engagement, suppressing the target with bolter fire while driving the tank close enough that the weapon can be plainly seen and can't possibly miss.  Some "casualties" might simply be enemy running away!

_________________
Email me for Epic near Toronto!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:57 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9338
Location: Singapore
Quote (fuseboy @ 09 Jan. 2006 (20:35))
I'm not arguing for the bonus one way or another, but something to consider is that the same weapon could easily have different effectiveness when in different hands and used with different tactics.

I think that the name of a weapon is really there as a mnemonic for it. I think that this is the real reason why two different sets of stats should not have the same name... when someone says 'Demolisher Cannon' I think of certain stats, and I know that certain tanks have certain weapons - it makes remembering everything easier.

While, in principle, the same cannon on a different tank using different ammo could (and most likely would) have different stats, it would make things much more difficult and confusing to remember it all.

Therefore, I do think that each name should be reserved for a single set of stats. That being said, changing the name to the 'Vindicator Cannon' would solve this problem if required.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:21 am 
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 remember that the Vindicator cannon in SM1 (or 2?) was called a "Thunderer".
As there was a model f?r WH40k they giver it the stats (and name) of the demolisher cannon.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
To add to the 'serious debate' from another topic:

Multi Melta Tacticals/Devastators.

I think they add a favourable alternative in use to some of the Marine Formations. Uses which are present and *very* viable in 40k, yet are entirely absent in Epic. Especially considering it'd allow with utmost ease the ability to represent the Salamanders Chapter by only simpyl adding a 'focus'.

Easy.

As for the Vindicator, as a primarily 40k(well BFG actually, but moreso than Epic) player, I'd be wary of the Vindicator and Demolisher having different 'cannons'. However, if it works in the game well and actually fixes the problem, then who am I to argue?

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Flogus
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:11 pm
Posts: 418
Location: France (Rouen)
Opinion from an IG player :
We wait for a new profil for the Baneblade. The +1FF demolisher cannon is one of the Baneblade improvments. But this change also means Vindicator and Leman Russ Demolisher change.

The Leman Russ Demolisher is already fine. So giving it +1FF must be balanced with a FF downgrade from FF3+ to FF4+, or simply increase the LR Demolishers cost (from 200 to 225 or 250pts the 3).

The SHT Stormhammer is also concerned with this change.

IG is ready to accept the change of the demolisher cannon. We (IG players) wait to see what SM will do with Vindicators.
If SM players are also agree with the Vindicator upgrade, let's make this new demolisher cannon profile officially officious ;)

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: focused debate
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
The vindicator doesn't need a +1ff attack, the speed boost and changed options to support units is enough. Maybe to reprsent the better handling of the gun up its FF by 1.

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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