Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Two 8.4 games.
Hojyn
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:52 am
Posts: 876
Location: Brest - France

(Chroma @ Nov. 13 2007,12:24)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 13 2007,10:38)
QUOTE
Yep, as support craft they'd die even faster.

How can something die faster than immediately?

They're sub-par as it is!


so then we face facts... it's a DUD!!

Well, I know some of you guys really like the Vituperator, but there have been complaints on the epic_fr forum along these lines:

- Where does this Vituperator come from (FW model, right)? Is it needed in the list now that the FW model is no longer available?

- The Harridan is really sub-par, there's hardly any reason to use it.

So... since several people here (army champ included) seem to agree that the Harridan is... lacking, why not get rid of the Vituperator and "transfer" its profile to the Harridan?

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:57 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Nov. 14 2007,08:16)
QUOTE
Harridan seems to be quite useful on it's own as long as enemy cannot concentrate too much firepower on it. It has couple of quite accurate shots that can be used when needed.

Yep I find them very useful for racing around flanks and sniping or engaging small lone formations (eg artillery batteries).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Vituperator is addition in E:A to the Tyranids, same as Hydraphant.


Untrue.

The Hydraphant is just the old 'large bio titan', but renamed.

The Vituraptor is 100% made up for the E:A list.

Personally, I'd like to see it dropped.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:09 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 14 2007,10:07)
QUOTE
The Vituraptor is 100% made up for the E:A list.

Personally, I'd like to see it dropped.

Me too.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Kagetora
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85
I like the Vituperator as well.  I've actually found it to be semi-useful as a formation leader, carrying 8 Gaunts or Gargs and shielded by 2 Trygons (same move).  It ain't cheap, and I think I have yet to actually kill ANYTHING with the flamer template, but I have liked how the formation worked out.

The Harridan, OTOH, seems woefully weak.  Its all but impossible to shield, and carrying only half the number of units makes it much weaker than the Vituperator in any actual situation.

But, that said, exactly how powerful should a Harridan be?  I'd say we've got appropriate stats for it right now...a DC3 WE Skimmer with some shooting and CC attacks, fairly fast.  And, as others have pointed out, it can have its uses for a clever general.  Hell, you could take two of them with Gaunts and have them hang out next to your Vituperator...he could bring them into an Engagement with Commander.  Thats very useful.  They'd also be good Support units...fly over next to something and drop off the Termagaunts, and drop a couple BM's on the target with the Harridan.  Then assault with something else and let it and the gaunts shoot again in Support.  Other armies do this all the time.

I think both units work.  Lets not remove either of them.  Again, it seems like change just for the sake of change.  The "I don't like this" method of change.  Problem is, some of us do like it.  If you don't, no one is forcing you to use it...don't strip the option from the rest of us.  Its not as if the Vituperator is dominating the battlefield or overpowered or anything.

Plus I converted a cool model for it.   :)

Again, just because something isn't in the fluff, or we made it up, is no reason to abandon it.  The simple question should be, does it work within the rules?  Both the Harridan and the Vituperator work fine.  Leave them be.  More variety, not less.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
As an odd prospect, what about giving Free Planetfall to the Vituperaptor and/or the Harridan? To represent that they can fly way up high and descend rapidly to earth, but can't fly fast enough to depart the board again in the span of an Epic game? Plus I happen to like the imagery of one of these things swooping down from way up high and dumping stuff all over the place.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
More variety is harder to balance. look at the TAU list. I hardly believe the list will be never balanced with all the options. A unit less will be a unit we do not have to care about....and it adds no fluff, as it doesn?t exist in the 40k universe anyway.

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
I am also for stripping some of the options out of the list. There are currently too many different unit types in the nid list.

In fact, the list could even be split up, with different lists focusing more on different aspects of the list, ala the various guard and marine lists.

All the core epic lists represent specific armies, why must the nid list represent the entire race?

Why not have one hive fleet llst which focuses on bio-titans and so forth  (a sort of mega-nidzilla list), and one that focuses more on infantry and bio-tanks for example?

Just an idea, but one with merit I think.




_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(zombocom @ Nov. 15 2007,12:05)
QUOTE
Why not have one hive fleet llst which focuses on bio-titans and so forth ?(a sort of mega-nidzilla list), and one that focuses more on infantry and bio-tanks for example?

Just an idea, but one with merit I think.

Actually, all those ideas are in the works.  I've got various "Phase" and "Hive Fleet" ideas on the backburner, but we're focusing on getting the basic "Tyranid Rules" down, as they will be used in essentially all Tyranid lists.

For an "infantry focus" list, take a look at the Phase III 'Attack' army list or the Seeding Swarm one.

Lots of potential variety for the Bugs!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
I think, as has been mentioned before, that it is very difficult to achieve that balance in a list containing too many unit types. In lists with smaller numbers of units army wide special rules and point reductions can be used to make the less desirable options more focused on, but in a "whole race" list like this, it'l never get that balance.

I think you're better off working on them as seperate lists that check against each other for major stat changes, but with varying points costs etc. Internal balance is only possible this way.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(zombocom @ Nov. 15 2007,15:33)
QUOTE
I think, as has been mentioned before, that it is very difficult to achieve that balance in a list containing too many unit types.

Well, I don't think the number of unique unit types and characters in the Tyranid list is all that "high" compared to the other official lists:

IG: 25 units
Marines: 25 units
Orks: 27
Biel-Tan: 38 units
Black Legion: 28 + 9 daemons
Lost and the Damned: 25 + 9 daemons + 12 traitor units.

Tyranids: 26 units

Which units do you find excessive in the Tyranid list, zombocom?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Two 8.4 games.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
IG, Marines have fixed unit sizes. They are not as flexible as tyranids, where you choose how to composite every unit (swarm)

Orks are similar, but their special rules are easy to understand. Also their weapons are limited (Big gunz, soopagunz all have the same values)

Eldar are quite different and not that easy to balance, as the proposed rule changes clearly say.

Black Legion and LatD are done by maybe too "fanatic" army champions and host some new units really not needed. I call em "Junkyard" lists. This lists host units which were available in prior Epic rule systems and didn?t find a place in the core lists. (no insult, just a conclusion)

Tyranids would clearly benefit from fewer units because of their highly complex special rules. It?s not crucial to eliminate them, but if there is really no background...why keep them?

my 0,002 cent

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net