[Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! |
|
N0-1_H3r3
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison!  Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:22 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:29 pm
Posts: 56
Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK
|
|
Re: Biovores
Presently in 40k, they're noted as being Bio-artillery, which means that they can operate independantly of Synapse creatures on the battlefield - no risk of reverting to Instinct.
IMO, that sort of change in this list might solve a couple of the issues with them - making them a relatively small, fixed size formation, competing with other Independants for space in the list might lessen their overall impact (primarily by preventing the large, respawning, heavy artillery broods we're seeing at the moment). 4 Biovore units for 150pts, with the current 1BP stats (with Exocrines as a similar '4 for 300pts' Independant choice) seems about reasonable, and keeps the Nid artillery in a support role, as opposed to becoming more potent than IG Artillery.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
ragnarok
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:29 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
|
|
I don't like the idea of bio art coming out of the independant 1/3 of the army. I've just brought a load of Ebay and my independant section is filled with biotitans. Besides I was looking forwards to attaching a vore or two to a common brood swarm to lay down a few blastmarkers before assaulting.
_________________
Tyranid air marshal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:16 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Be very careful about how you look at comparing points of 40K models to Epic models. They don't just "scale up" proportionately.
The simple fact is that some weapon systems are very good at short range while some are much better at longer range. 40K is all short range, so a short-range weapon/troop would cost a lot compared to other choices, while an Epic version would have much more limited use (assaults only) and should therefore cost proportionately less.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ferrumvir
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:59 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:50 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Nottingham, England
|
|
Hi Neil,
I know they don't "scale up" exactly but the power/effectiveness of the units should be at least in the right ball park. Hopefully, the sugestions made will start the debate and we'll end up with a cracking set of rules.
Cheers Scott
_________________
Tyranids 5.40B - (w/d/l) 5/2/2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
wargame_insomniac
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Quote (ragnarok @ 23 Oct. 2005 (22:29)) | | I don't like the idea of bio art coming out of the independant 1/3 of the army. ?I've just brought a load of Ebay and my independant section is filled with biotitans. ?Besides I was looking forwards to attaching a vore or two to a common brood swarm to lay down a few blastmarkers before assaulting. |
But you can't base army selection criteria on what some people may have bought on ebay. I have bought a load of metal tyranid figures including biotitans and biotanks. I have found it very difficult to pick up much Nid infantry because the plastic sprues go for so much money. And as Nids are n't my main Epic army I am not going to pay through the nose for Nid plastic infantry.
So I personally would love it if common brood minimum was reduced to 10% as I would find it far easier to field a legal Nid army. But that would ruin the army list for use as a tournament legal army. Which I understood to be a priority.
Cheers
James
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I know they don't "scale up" exactly but the power/effectiveness of the units should be at least in the right ball park. |
It still depends on what you mean by "the right ball park." They should maintain an appropriate feel according to the descriptions of their abilities, but that could still result in a dramatically different ratio of 40K:EA points. Also just as important, the army as a whole should have a distinctive feel or flavor and that could necessitate further skewing of stats beyond what an otherwise direct scale-up would imply.
Jervis' direction for the feel of the list is a never-ending ravening horde of teeth and claws. Any proposed changes have to keep that end goal in mind as well as the relative 40K-scale abilities/points and the background material.
Keeping that in mind, if Raveners scale up more cheaply than other nids so that they can form part of the faceless mass of bugs, then that should take precedence over their 40K "feel" where they are a more elite unit. If "shooty" stuff scales up too expensive that means the price along with the army org will discourage Nid players from taking a lot of these relatively rare and elite troops, again shifting the army to the faceless horde aspect.
Maybe I misunderstood your intent, but your opening post seems very focused on 40K stats being scaled up as accurately as possible. I don't think that is the best way of looking at it. The overall feel is much more important than getting the individual units as 40k-stat-accurate as possible.
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ragnarok
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:52 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
|
|
W_I my comment was made in jest, well the bit about because I had brought them on E-bay. I know yhe problem your facing with common troops. I'm going to be baseing my common brood at only 1 or 2 per stand until I can get them chaeply.
_________________
Tyranid air marshal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
wargame_insomniac
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:32 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Quote (ragnarok @ 24 Oct. 2005 (19:52)) | | W_I my comment was made in jest, well the bit about because I had brought them on E-bay. ?I know yhe problem your facing with common troops. ?I'm going to be baseing my common brood at only 1 or 2 per stand until I can get them chaeply. |
No worries- I would have hated for someone to have taken the comment seriously and potentially affected rules- that is the danger of internet- can't always tell tone unless massed use of smilies.
With the suggestions of proxy for Epic Raveners, I should just about have enough common broods to field 2,700-3,000 points Nid force. Anything larger will have to wait until the sprues are officially re-released by SG which could be som,etime between 2007 & never....
Cheers
James
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ferrumvir
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:50 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Nottingham, England
|
Neil,
I think we agree, we want the look and feel of a Horde, and the rules to fit the background as closely as possible. I'm just using points cost to equate relative power between the two systems in an attempt at achieving this goal. 
Cheers Scott
_________________
Tyranids 5.40B - (w/d/l) 5/2/2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:42 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Fair enough.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ferrumvir
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:29 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:50 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Nottingham, England
|
Hi,
I've a game arrange for tomorrow night, these are the modifications I'm thinking of trying.
===================================================================
BV - Spore Mines 45cm AP4+/AT6+, Indirect, Disrupt
Notes: Biovores are allowed to use the Indirect Fire rules normally only allowed to units that can fire barrages (see1.9. . All of the rules for Indirect Fire apply, including the rules for doubling the Biovore's range when it fires indirectly.
Cost: unchanged
===================================================================
The notes are copied straight from Swordwinds "Thudd Gun". 90cm IDF ties up with Whirlwinds and the like.
I'm suggesting leaving the cost unchanged until we can gauge effect.
===================================================================
RV - Drop the number of raveners represented by each base from 5 to 3
===================================================================
I've not used Raveners so I'm not confident about changing the stats/cost. Especially as everyone else seems to be happy with them, it's just what a unit represents that does not tie up! Most 40k 2 wound creatures are not based 5 to a unit.
===================================================================
ZO - Keep the stat's cost the same just increase to 3 the number of creature represented by each unit. (I'll still use 1 per base because that's how I've modelled them, "counts as" but we'd all know it was three really!)
===================================================================
I like the way the ZO plays, it's just the ability of 1-EA ZO far out shines 1-40K ZO
===================================================================
LC - change weapons to Rending Claws (Base Contact) Assault Weapons, Macro-Weapon, Extra Attack (+1)
Notes: gains commander
cost: unchanged
===================================================================
LC are not that much better in CC than a 5 genestealers - so I'm dubious about leaving the MW.
With the commander skill now included the points cost becomes incomparable with 40k, like the TW I mentioned in the first post. Their game play is nolonger a "basic" unit.
===================================================================
EDO Dacto-Exocrine
Super Spore Mines 60cm 1BP, Disrupt, Indirect Fire
Cost: remains the same
===================================================================
I'm suggesting leaving the cost unchanged until we can gauge effect.
Any comments?
Cheers Scott
_________________
Tyranids 5.40B - (w/d/l) 5/2/2
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ragnarok
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
|
|
With LCs are you using 2 or 3 stands per brood?
_________________
Tyranid air marshal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: [Rules] Infantry costs - 40k comparison! Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:20 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (Hena @ 21 Oct. 2005 (15:16)) | | The cost of 1BP Dacto-Crine at 75pts makes sure that 10BP barrage costs 750pts. Then include the Warriors and the overall cost is 900 (or 850 with a hive tyrant). That is a very expensive formation. With the 25pts one could get the same with 650pts. Range 60cm (IDF) is still high enough to cover significant area. |
A question: If you were going to make an "artillery" swarm, that's most likely to use Sustained Fire for most of the game, why wouldn't you just buy a lesser Synapse Node to take care of them instead of Tyrant or Warriors?
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
