In Wh40k the Valkyrie and Vulture are Aircrafts with Hover Mode (VTOL) which exactly does what LordInquisitor has done in Epic. If wanted it transforms the landed Aircraft into a Skimmer.

Aircrafts with Hover Mode are:

Thunderhawk
Thunderhawk Transporter

Vulture
Valkyrie
Aquila Lander
Arvus Lighter

Vampire Raider

Manta
Orca

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

Yep, the vulture and valkyrie work exactly the same way in 40k as the Aquilla, and are counted as skimmers in epic. I see no justification for making the Aquilla special.

Note that making it a DC 1 WE would negate the need for a special transport rule for it as well if you decided to keep it an aircraft.

With shrouding, the reason people want it to be all but FF are twofold. Firstly, an engagement is a game of 40k in scoope, which is the point at which shrouding becomes effective. Secondly, having to constantly check the range of each shot is a real pain, especially for formations that are roughly 45cm away, where some shots will be shrouded and others not. It's just a clunky mechanic, which is why just about nothing else works that way in epic (save for the minimum 30cm distance on indirect fire, which is also clunky).

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

You really think the Aquila should just be a skimmer?

Maybe its just me, but I see the valkyries and vultures (yes, they're jet-powered) as fulfilling the equivalent role as helicopters in modern armies. Low-flying aircraft supporting infantry. The Aquila, on the other hand, is a shuttle, a high-altitude (transatmospheric?) craft that can also hover.

Note that making it a DC 1 WE would negate the need for a special transport rule for it as well if you decided to keep it an aircraft.

Personally, I think the hovering is something at a scale that doesn't need to be represented in epic. If you are really so concerned then make it a planetfalling skimmer. It doesn't justify a special rule.

With regards to an engagement being 18" - Why 18? Most basic weapons in 40k are 24", and FF doesn't just represent small arms weapons anyway, which is why devestators have a better FF than tactical marines.

I contend that an engagement corresponds to a lot more than 24", since an engagement represents a whole game of 40k over a 15 minute period, including units closing over distance, ducking into cover and moving in and out of range etc.

The fact that heavy bolters have a range of 36" in 40k is unimportant, since all weapons are deliberately under-ranged in that game system since otherwise you would need tables 10 times the size to be able to play a game.

With regards to the annoyance and complexity of it, yes, it really is a hassle. Bear in mind that it's the opponent that will be doing the measuring, and you'll have to point out to him every time to check whether it's within 45cm.

Not to mention that probably 80% of Epic shooting happens inside 45cm anyway, so currently the rule bearly ever comes up. Also bear in mind that a lot of long ranged shooting isn't usually checked for range. If you have a 90cm range gun firing from around 45cm you won't usually need to check. In this case you will, slowing an already game down.

Drop it to FF range, it becomes simpler to remember, more accurate to the 40k mechanic (which as you say is all we have to go on) and raise the points costs if it proves too powerful.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Alien and Witch hunters added to the first post. Thanks to Cybershadow for hosting these!

Can you link to that? I was simply going by the “one weapon one profileâ€Â

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Hi,

having gotten chance to play them at games day and discuss the rules I think the VTOL rules are fine. I think you just have to play them to see that it may sound odd in theory, but it really is fine in terms of mechanics.

my only concern during our game was the "stormtrooper" formations activating on a 1. that seems like a bit much. I have no issue with The HQ retinues or the Grey Knight being so adept, its expected...but humans, even elite humans on a 1? If I am remebering poorly please correct me, if I am on target, does this seems to be the best thing rules-wise?

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

The VTOL rule is still an unnessesary Special Rule that doesn't belong in Epic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Thanks for the feedback. As for the stormtroopers, I'm very willing to consider dropping them back to initiative 2+. I made them initiative 1+ for simplicity's sake - everything else has 1+. As I mentioned, during playtesting I would often forget and assume them to be 1+ and I think they'd need a points drop to be 2+ - stormtroopers are just not all that. Fluffwise the Inquisition just has the bravest and the best, I guess.

It's a balance/simplicity vs fluff issue. In game terms is far easier to just make them 1+, although this is streaching the 40K unit analogue somewhat.

The VTOL rule is still an unnessesary Special Rule that doesn't belong in Epic.

I've been playing a Vassal game with LI and I can say mechanically I haven't found anything wrong with the VTOL rule. I think it is important for people to actually play a game with the rule to see what it is all about before judging it on its design.

However, the VTOL rule rubs me the wrong way, probably for the same reason that Hena brought up.  It isn't that the Inquisition shouldn't have the ability; it is that so many other army lists should have the ability.  That disconnect makes me feel uncomfortable with it every time.

The only thing about the VTOL rules that are hinky are the very same things that are hinky about the current air rules; i.e. VTOL doesn't bring any new problems to the equation.  Personally, I'd like to see it worked into Neal's alternative air rules and published someplace since there are so many units that would fall under the VTOL umbrella.  Perhaps the VTOL operation would be even better given the smoothness of Neal's system.

Getting back to this list... I hate to say it but I think VTOL should probably go.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

My own objections are quite similar to Moscovian's... mechanically I'm sure it's fine, it's just that it really doesn't belong alongside the other Epic army lists.

Just make the Aquilla a flyer.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No opinion on the VTOL thing, but I reckon the list looks good from what I can see! I'll start playing epic again soon and plan to take an Inquisition list to a tournament next year

Will you be updating it a while (maybe waiting till after the new Forge World book comes out incase they add any other new units in for them?), would be great to have Grey Knights Psycannon Razorbacks and a Land Raider Redeemer, both with all their weapons ignoring invulnerable saves. I reckon the Redeemer could very well replace the Crusader in the list - it's much more characterful for them -  though you could have them both if you want.

Ordo Malleus v3.3
Mystic : present in the options of Inquisitorial and IG forces, but not in "Inquisition Task Force Upgrades".
The GK Terminators have the "Holocaust" ability. But I can not find the description of this ability.

Ordo Hereticus v3.3
The "Penitents" upgrade is not listed as an Inquisitorial/IG/SoB upgrade.

All Inquisition v3.3 lists
You should add the titans & Navy unit profiles (as you allready recall many SM & IG unit profiles).
And what about including the NetEA recommandations ? (Landraider FF4+, Dreadnought armour 3+, Marauder Wing : 250pts)

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr