Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

[Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
Something based on Spore Clouds 48%  48%  [ 15 ]
Something based on Gargoyles 23%  23%  [ 7 ]
Something based on Zoanthropes 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Something that uses two or three of the above 19%  19%  [ 6 ]
Something else (explain below) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Tyranids should have no AA 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 31

[Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
even a low-effect glance is sufficient to cause serious trouble for the owner!)


Not really, a Land Raider can ignore many of the glancing hit results due to the 'marines have better AI' special rule... it's only destroyed 1 in 6 times when glanced.

but I don't see these things as being THAT much more powerful then, say, a Multi-Melta relative to their target defenses.

You don't face hundreds and hundreds of multi-meltas with your tank... but you do face many hundreds of spore mines, all exploding around you as you fly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I admit to not knowing the exact rules for them in 40K, but it seems odd to me to assume a 'best case' scenario for them where you'll see several impacting at once if even one does, or have no effect at all. I'd be much happier with something like AA 5+/MW then the DTT. Better represents that there's a fairly large number (perhaps 10-15) in the immediate area which can respond to aircraft moving through it, maintains their lethality against lightly armored aircraft (Like most Interceptors which are very lightly armored) without removing all chances of armor saves from units with Reinforced Armor. The other effect this has, as I understand it, is preventing an aircraft which ends its movement inside a spore cloud from being attacked again while it leaves the field, something which no other army's AA abilities can perform.

Epic, like 40K, is a game which is based around the ideas and vision of the universe it's set in, but is by no means constrained specifically by the fluff material there of. While in the fluff the Tyranids certainly clog the skies of a world with spore mines, they also supposedly fly so many gargoyles that the skies go completely black during attacks. Regularly expend thousands of gaunts as a way to waste enemy ammunition. And many other similar things. Space Marines in the fluff material are almost unstoppable, with a single space marine easily the equal of a dozen or more IG. The background material should be taken as a vision of the world the way the writers view it, not as something which should define a game system which's purpose is to generate an interesting and fun result.

The assumed use of Spore Mines in such numbers as to make anything they successfully attack be seriously damaged without recourse to armor saves even if they have Reinforced Armor is certainly in the spirit of the fluff material of 40K, no doubt about that. But is it in the best interests of the game, and does it suit the style we want for them? My personal opinion is that their numbers would be better represented by an easier hit number with less lethality per hit. This, to me at least, also seems to generate a better result in terms of their effectiveness against lightly armored enemies while making those with heavy armor easier to fly through their ranks. Nine Fighta-Bommaz are going to fear a group of spore mines much more then a Thunderhawk will.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:55 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
It seems to me that meotic spore mines are a bunch of fairly big and deadly things, rather than a more numerous bunch of smaller less deadly things (eg like bio-acid spore mines or gargoyles). Thus they are bad if they hit, but they are easier to avoid than more numerous light things, especially for fighters. Ie the comparison with DTT is probably justified.

However, if they are that big (which they certainly appear to be given the model and the ST, then maybe they could be legitimate AA targets like small barrage balloons (?), which might also be a balancing factor towards allowing them to spawn (?).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:28 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

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

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 12 2007,22:47)
QUOTE
even a low-effect glance is sufficient to cause serious trouble for the owner!)


Not really, a Land Raider can ignore many of the glancing hit results due to the 'marines have better AI' special rule... it's only destroyed 1 in 6 times when glanced.

but I don't see these things as being THAT much more powerful then, say, a Multi-Melta relative to their target defenses.


You don't face hundreds and hundreds of multi-meltas with your tank... but you do face many hundreds of spore mines, all exploding around you as you fly.
Glancing is still pretty bad for landraiders in a 40K game, effectively suppressed (which means you can't respond bar one gun due to machine spirit), plus it might be worse, immobilised or destroyed etc.

Regarding the second point, if there are 'hundreds of these things exploding around you as you fly' you are dead, no question. 'Hundreds of them exploding around you' would only make sense if they were smaller less lethal devices like normal spore mines, or gargoyles IMHO.

I think they can only make sense if they are seen as small barrage balloons in smaller numbers which you HAVE to avoid, because if they do hit you, with those stats you are a gone- bird no matter what sort of crate you are flying.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Regarding the second point, if there are 'hundreds of these things exploding around you as you fly' you are dead, no question. 'Hundreds of them exploding around you' would only make sense if they were smaller less lethal devices like normal spore mines, or gargoyles IMHO.


Please read Imperial Armour IV Markconz.


When the Meotic Spore Mines bring down a Thunderhawk... hundreds of them explode.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
So, bringing us up to date - we have 3 people who have actually playtested any AA types and Batrep/reported here. 2 playtested the Gargoyles and one didn't try and used his preferred choice of meotic spores. We also have numerous people giving their theories and opinions without having PLAYTESTED anything or passed on their actual results.

Does this sound correct?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:19 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

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

(Dobbsy @ Mar. 13 2007,21:01)
QUOTE
So, bringing us up to date - we have 3 people who have actually playtested any AA types and Batrep/reported here. 2 playtested the Gargoyles and one didn't try and used his preferred choice of meotic spores. We also have numerous people giving their theories and opinions without having PLAYTESTED anything or passed on their actual results.

Does this sound correct?

Yes exactly :D

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:25 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

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

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 13 2007,11:57)
QUOTE
Regarding the second point, if there are 'hundreds of these things exploding around you as you fly' you are dead, no question. 'Hundreds of them exploding around you' would only make sense if they were smaller less lethal devices like normal spore mines, or gargoyles IMHO.


Please read Imperial Armour IV Markconz.


When the Meotic Spore Mines bring down a Thunderhawk... hundreds of them explode.

So there is a complete contradiction between the stats for a unit (one MS is lethal) and the fluff written for it (takes hundreds of MS to be lethal)?

Why does it not surprise me FW has done this again? ????  :D  

Another case for not taking FW too seriously I think.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
I dunno. Given the nature of super-heavy vehicles and the fact that an average roll for penetration is only glancing I'd expect it to take at least 3-4 of these things to have a good chance to shave off a single DC from a Thunderhawk. Admittedly not needing hundreds of them to down one, but you'd probably want at least 10-20 to have a good chance to down a Thunderhawk at Strength 5+2D6.

Though this kind of fluff material discrepency with the actual games is fairly standard. Especially in 40K (I've seen less of it in WHF anyway). Usually it goes in the opposite direction, admittedly, where the fluff claims something is insanely strong (Daemon Princes being powerful enough to threaten whole worlds) and the game says they're not that strong (Daemon Princes being as powerful as maybe a squad of Terminators). But the whole discrepency between game-play and fluff material exists all over 40K.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Dobbsy @ Mar. 13 2007,22:01)
QUOTE
So, bringing us up to date - we have 3 people who have actually playtested any AA types and Batrep/reported here. 2 playtested the Gargoyles and one didn't try and used his preferred choice of meotic spores. We also have numerous people giving their theories and opinions without having PLAYTESTED anything or passed on their actual results.

If you want playtest results you are asking the wrong question :)

The debate seems to me (someone who has never faced nor used a tyranid army) to be about which style of defence you wish to adopt, rather than which one provides which cover.

Typically you pick the style first then try and make it work, otherwise you just add Hydras to every army.

So are you asking which style works best or which style should be pursued?

Personally style wise I'd go for the sky clogged with exploding obsticles. Whether this is spore mines, or a mandatory diff terrain test for anything entering the table would be the result of finding out what works.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Whether this is spore mines, or a mandatory diff terrain test for anything entering the table would be the result of finding out what works


Hmm... seems to me you can't find out what works without PLAYTESTING - something people seem adverse to doing here in Epic land before stating how things should be - everyone wants to push their own agenda of what they think things should do. I mean, doesn't the amount of hypothesising and lip-flapping that goes on and on before anything is actually tried out, bother anyone else?

We could argue until we're all old and grey about what piece of fluff should be represented in the rules and not get anywhere, but if barely anyone actually does any trial and error to test the theory just because it doesn't sit with their personal choice (there was an instance of this recently on this very topic) then this list will go nowhere for a very long time.

Playtest it and move on for the positive or the negative. I don't care anymore, just try it out. End the pages and pages of round-and-round debate for Pete's sake!

Sorry for the rant but this really is bothering me and I'm seriously considering exiting from the discussions here.

I think I'll go have a cup of tea....

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:18 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
I think extensive debate and discussion like this is probably a good thing. Shows that people are invested in the process and lots of ideas are raised. I've changed my mind thanks to information provided. In my own head I think possibilities are narrowing down...

Still playtesting is definitely required before anything is really firmed up. I have seen playtest reports from only 2 other people so far... I've done 5 reports using the most recent list myself, and that doesn't seem like much to me.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:47 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

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

(Ilushia @ Mar. 14 2007,02:28)
QUOTE
I dunno. Given the nature of super-heavy vehicles and the fact that an average roll for penetration is only glancing I'd expect it to take at least 3-4 of these things to have a good chance to shave off a single DC from a Thunderhawk. Admittedly not needing hundreds of them to down one, but you'd probably want at least 10-20 to have a good chance to down a Thunderhawk at Strength 5+2D6.

If that is the case I would prefer them as AA attacks.

Either its hundreds of spores which bring down a aircraft with cumulative effects, or it's a few more deadly effects which scythe through armour.  So are they deadly or not?  ??? Seems like FW doesn't have a clue.

Agreed that fluff and stats differ, but this sort of disparity hasn't struck me in the core 40k material (as opposed to FW) for bugs... maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.  :D

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Dobbsy @ Mar. 14 2007,04:51)
QUOTE
Whether this is spore mines, or a mandatory diff terrain test for anything entering the table would be the result of finding out what works


Hmm... seems to me you can't find out what works without PLAYTESTING - something people seem adverse to doing here in Epic land before stating how things should be - everyone wants to push their own agenda of what they think things should do.

That presupposes that you favour the 'sky clogged with exploding stuff' view.

Now if you were a, say, ground based aa bug (ala starship troopers) fan you wouldn't agree with this. Your playtests would report on the effectiveness of zoanathropes, whereas someone else could be testing static curtain clouds.

Each and every method can probably be gotten to work. Thats not the hard bit, it just requires time and testing.

However unless some method has a serious flaw that only shows in testing having a debate to determine which you want to do is quite different and useful.

If you say setting on the aa attack moving with the swarm (typical flak) its a simple matter to get a balance between points values and effectiveness. If you want something different though like a static spawnable difficult terrain test that moving flak data is useless.

If everyone goes off and tests their own method all you get is a dozen different ideas, each matching to one persons view and playing style.

Hence pick a style. Say how you think it would work, several people test it then review and go from there.

Or of course you could simply pick a method know to work or playtest one to find out how it does, then try to write whatever fluff round it - i take it you favour the second?

I mean, doesn't the amount of hypothesising and lip-flapping that goes on and on before anything is actually tried out, bother anyone else?

I wish more of it is listened to. Some ideas are just crap and plainly so. Several lists have had stuff in that people demand to be tested despite there being enough experience with similar to know it ain't gonna work.

Plus remember most people get a max of 3-4 games a week (if they are lucky) leaving far more time for theorising :)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: [Discussion]Primary Tyranid AA: What should it be?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Markconz @ Mar. 14 2007,00:25)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 13 2007,11:57)
QUOTE
Regarding the second point, if there are 'hundreds of these things exploding around you as you fly' you are dead, no question. 'Hundreds of them exploding around you' would only make sense if they were smaller less lethal devices like normal spore mines, or gargoyles IMHO.


Please read Imperial Armour IV Markconz.


When the Meotic Spore Mines bring down a Thunderhawk... hundreds of them explode.

So there is a complete contradiction between the stats for a unit (one MS is lethal) and the fluff written for it (takes hundreds of MS to be lethal)?

Why does it not surprise me FW has done this again?  ???  :D  

Another case for not taking FW too seriously I think.

It's quite hard to bring down a thunderhawk with just one spore mine.


Oh wait it's practically impossible!

Now if you had ten or fifteen spore mines, you might do it!


GAH.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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