Firepower 1 page 13 says, "As with flak, I don't think super heavy tanks such as Baneblades, Shadowsword and Ork Battlefortresses are worthwhile enough at the moment." It talks about vulnerability, and says the main problem is the criticals. It gives a new critical talble and suggests using it for Baneblades, Shadwoswords, and Ork Battle Fortresses.

The table drastically changes the results. Where before, 7+ sent you to the Catastrophic Damage Table, this one only references that table on 11+. None of the results add additional damage, and the effects are all temporary "may not fire" or Immobilized states.

The Eldar Engines of Vaul have a similar table to War Engines mentioned above, but the article does not suggest using the new table for them. I found them very fragile, too. Maybe they are supposed to be fragile, but they cost the same as the Imperial superheavies, and are more expensive than battlefortresses.

Did you experience the same thing? Ever consider letting the Engines of Vaul tag along with the other war engines and use the new table?

andy

If you played / play Epic 40,000, would you say:
* The Eldar super-heavy tanks are not as weak as the Imperial and Ork super-heavies, and don't need the bonus.
* The Eldar SH tanks cost appropriately because of their offense and mobility.
* The Eldar SH tanks should have gotten the same bonus, and the authors just had Imperial vs Ork on their brains.
* None of the SH tanks needed the bonus, and Chambers et al were mistaken to give any the benefit.
* Something else.

The article in Firepower gave quite a boost, both drastically changing the 2d6 table to make problems less likely and removing the bonus damage. While I could believe that the Eldar tanks are supposed to be more fragile, this huge change for no point difference makes it seem to me that the Eldar don't deserve to be that far behind.

To be honest, I think the table is less flavorful. I don't mind them all using the same one, but removing bonus hits for some of the results makes it less interesting, I think.

Did anyone use this article when you were playing Epic 40,000?

thanks
andy

I think a lot of the early Firepower articles were very Imperial verse Ork centric (still waiting on rules for Eldar knights) and given the homogeneity that the various races experienced (this is your fast attack option, it has a FP of one but an assault of 2) that equating the Eldar heavy tanks with the IG and Ork heavy tanks would be correct.

Also, I think that the table change wouldn't have been necessary if the Death Ray wasn't so game breaking. Make it a to hit roll of 5+ or 6+ and a lot of your problems with super heavy tanks and almost anything fielded by the Tyranids would have been improved immeasurably.

Hmmm. I don't seem to be getting notified about messages to the forum, so missed this. Thanks for the reply.

Yes, they called out the Death Ray specifically. I don't think it would be an interesting weapon at 5+, seeing that AT is 4+. Maybe leave it at 2+ to hit, but causes a critical on 4+ would have been a good compromise. But I'm not planning on changing that at this point.

I will treat them the same. However, I think both changing the 2d6 results _and_ making all results say 0 extra hits might be going too far.

andy

For some reason I'm not getting informed either when a post I'm following is replied to ? A pop-up once came up that had something to do with Chrome ? I've got Windows 10 on a new HP ?

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

It has nothing to do with any of that. as this has long been an issue as seen by http://taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/view ... 42&t=28950
Email notifications kinda suck here and keep dying

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!