And the rest:
Why does the Rapier in the Squat list have slightly better stats than the Rapier in the Barran list? They should be changed to be identical, KIS. The differences are the Barran Rapier having FF5+, no save and no CC attack at all. The same gun in a different list should have the same FF, 4+ is a mistake and disproportionate for the gun. Squats and IG infantry both wear flak armour, but it its appropriate for the Squat warriors to have a 6+ save due to their toughness 4. The difference for two gun crew would be so negligible that it should be ignored for the epic stats. The similar sized small artillery pieces in the Death Korps normally have 5 crew (as per their Imperial Armour books) yet the epic stats for these guns have no save. 2 Squats and a gun don't deserve a 6+ save if 5 DK and a gun don't have one. The arguments for CC are similar - Squats have higher WS in 40k though lower I so Guardsmen attack before they get a chance to. If 5 DK and a gun have no CC attack whatsoever in Epic then neither should 2 Squats and a gun. Also please can the Rapier's gun be correctly named the 'Rapier Laser Destroyer' as it is on the Rapier in the Barran list? The Epic Spartan Assault Tank has quad lascannon sponsons on each side (which have 2 x AT4+ stats) and its better not to have two guns named the same with different stats.
Similarly the Squat Thudd Gun should have no armour and no CC, so that it is identical to the Barran Thudd Gun for the same reasons. For consistency the Mole Mortar should follow suit too.
Moscovian wrote:
I had them at 5+ and had folks grumbling, so I don't think it is unreasonable at all.
Well, you've had five of us in this thread that are against CC4+ now, is that enough to make you reconsider it? CC 4+ on tracked WE is reserved for those that have specific CC weapons - giant rollers on ork forts, giant spikes, tentacles and such on the BL Decimator. WE without specific CC weaponry normally get 6+ CC, examples include:
Baneblades and the like, Eldar superheavies, Machariuses, Warbarques, the Leviathan in the Cadian list, Ordinatus Majoris,
ect. I don't think the unit is in any list currently (sadly) but the stats Jervis proposed playtesting for the Capitol Imperialis had it at 6+ too.
I would ideally have the Squat superheavies at 6+ but 5+ would be a good compromise. 5+ is the same as the 6DC tracked Cathedral of Purification in the Sisters of Battle list. If players complain their Squat superheavies are vulnerable in close combat then TOUGH, that's as they should be. Its a vulnerability and counterbalance to their immense firepower. Players should need to use other squat formations to screen and protect their war engines where CC is a risk.
Exception to the above: the Cyclops. Due to the huge spiked ram on the front this is justifIed in getting CC4+.
Why would anyone take a Mortar Car, ever? You'd loose the MW from the carriage's doomsday cannon. Maybe it should have 2BP?
Surely the Colossus's missiles should have a frontal fire arc? It doesn't seem like they are designed till be fired behind it.
The list is unclear: is it only Doomsday cannons that can fire indirectly with spotters or any WE indirect fire weapons?
Wow the Cyclops is powerful, as it should be though. The Colossus seems poor by comparison.
The spotter rule is unclear. The WE can use their indirect fire weapons when say doubling. Is their range still doubled or not?