| Author |
Message |
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Supporting Fire in an Assault |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:05 pm
|
|
Replies: 10
Views: 3886
|
| you don't need LOS to the unit that breaks though |
|
 |
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Supporting Fire in an Assault |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:07 pm
|
|
Replies: 10
Views: 3886
|
| the rule is clear enough I guess but it doesn't follow its own design notes where it says "these Blast markers represent the detrimental effect on morale of seeing friends defeated in an assault." because the rule doesn't require the supporting unit to have any LOS to the defeated target u... |
|
|
Forum: EA Strategy, Tactics and Army Lists Topic: Planet Falling Formations |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:33 pm
|
|
Replies: 16
Views: 10499
|
| they are talking about planet falling formations of skimmers with a transport capacity. pods are not relevant other than to say it would be less time consuming if such formations of skimmers had a rule that allowed them to scatter once like pods and not individually by unit as the rules require. Suc... |
|
|
Forum: Tournaments, Conventions and Meet-ups Topic: Epic UK Adeptus Titanicus (2018) Codex |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:01 am
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 8048
|
| It will be interesting to see whether any new players come across this way - given that EUK tourny player details are in the public domain - it will be known in time. I'm doubtful though because E:A is better (i.e. more enjoyable, strategic and competetive) played with combined arms and at least 10 ... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:08 pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| In 40k didn't they ditch saving throw modifiers in 3rd edition only to bring them back in 8th edition? I think there's a lot to be said for one saving throw with weapon specific modifiers (i.e. like back in 2nd edition epic) versus the all or nothing approach of MW/TK and frequent double and occasio... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:16 pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| I think it could be that the core issue is the gulf between a naked 4+ (or 5+RA which is simlar) which is moderate armour and 4+RA which is hard as nails. Adam77's graph suggests there are steps spanning that gulf but a naked 3+ is often perceived as a problem due to the all or nothing nature of MW ... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:04 am
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| In my mind there are all sorts of "no-impact" changes you could theoretically make to the rules to add granularity e.g. variable inv save (4+,5+,6+), variable fearless (weaker variants where you get a save from hackdowns etc), variable ignore cover (weaker versions that modify rather than ... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:57 am
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| that was actually the main purpose of starting the thread, to discuss where unit RA changes were desired so that the likely effect could be assessed. I know some people have named units previously or on other threads but thought it might be worth discussing this further in one place, whilst acknowle... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:23 am
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| I think intuitively it feels more appropriate to have the RA(x) as the save available for MW. Thats because it feels like that is the "saving" throw you get when your armour is defeated by the MW. As written its a bit of an issue because you cannot give e.g. a 4+ unit a little bit more sur... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:04 am
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| I’d have to say they take the RA save, not the standard one. I also think it would be a reasonable convention that the RA save can’t be better than the standard save. Based on existing (GW?) wording you cannot reroll failed save against MW therefore you would get your normal armour save rather than... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
yes all you have to do is just add the two sentences in green in the OP to the RA rule and its done. The fundamental issue is who has authority to do such a thing.
however, as stated in the OP i was curious how people would use this power were it granted. e.g. land raiders becoming 3+/4+ |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:38 pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| some really good points. like ginger said, for me inv should be reserved mainly for characters, daemons etc. and stay at 6+ And thats because otherwise i fear we'll get "marines characters deserve inv 5+ because they're the best" leading to "eldar are the most advanced so of course fa... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Reinforced Armour |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 12048
|
| I was browsing again this thread http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32500 wondering whether there were any rule changes where there appeared to be consensus that it is a problem and consensus in what the solution should be. The only item that I thought might qualify was t... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Imperial Guard Topic: Deathstrike Launcher Loadout |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 am
|
|
Replies: 5
Views: 3519
|
| rock paper scissors. If you know what your opponent is bringing then it's overpowered. If not e.g. for a tournament I would say its ok for 200pts. They are incredibly fragile. Having said that, barrage looks a bit too good. EpicUK apparently toned it down in AMTL to 8BP no disrupt (vs 10 BP disrupt) |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Are 6mm product lines for Epic "obsolete" because of AT 8mm? |
| ffoley |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:36 am
|
|
Replies: 29
Views: 8442
|
| I guess to make the question meaningful you have to define "obsolete" e.g. it might mean relative to now some or all of - most existing manufacturers of epic compatible models will stop production - no. of EA tournaments will significantly drop - no. of battle reports here will significant... |
|
|
| Sort by: |