| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Carnifexes http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10974 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Carnifexes. They're quite cheap, but for the same price as three Carnifexes (100pts) you can get a Trygon (Which generally lives longer and also has a shooting attack) or for 25 points more a Scythed Hierodule. In-game, I find that they underperform, so, should they be changed? How about their armour? With their current 3+ armour save Carnifexes survive against 66% of AT hits, and 0% of Macro-Weapon hits. Changing that to 4+ Reinforced Armour means that they'd survive against 75% of AT hits, and 50% of Macro-weapon hits. Giving them Thick Rear Armour would also be a minor boost. Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
I voted to just give them 4+ RA, as I think they should be more survivable, both in order to adhere more closely to the background & the 40k rules, and also to balance them in Epic games too. They should be living 'tanks', the Tyranid equivilent of Leman Russ. 
|
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
To the voter who voted "something else", care to share what that might be? *laugh* |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Why would the cost need to go up? Currently the consistantly underperform due to their moderate armour save and slow speed. Apparently you don't want them to change at all, and are content with their current stats / in-game performance? |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
What about 5+RA? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
(BlackLegion @ Nov. 11 2007,14:45) QUOTE What about 5+RA? 5+ RA actually decreases their survivability against normal AT/ FF hits by ~10% |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Isn't there something in between?  An other idea: According to Codex Tyranids the Hierodule are from the same genus as the Carnifex but one evolutionary step more advanced.. While Trygons and the bio-tanks are from the same genus as the Raveners but one evolutionary step more advanced. So Carnifices have 3+ armour and Hierodules have 4+RA armour and 3DC Raveners have 5+ armour and Trygons have 3+ armour and DC2. You could guess that the Trygon stats from FW are the default template for all the bio-tanks (Haruspex, Malefactor, etc) because of the shared genus of the Raveners and because they are on the same evelutionary step. Because of this, because of the general higher surviveability of Tyranid creatures in comparison to vehicles of comparable size and because some of you fear that a 4+RA Carnifex would make the bio-tanks obsolete, how about making the bio-tanks 3+ armour, DC2 war engines? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Because of this, because of the general higher surviveability of Tyranid creatures in comparison to vehicles of comparable size and because some of you fear that a 4+RA Carnifex would make the bio-tanks obsolete, how about making the bio-tanks 3+ armour, DC2 war engines? I'm not sure about this, the Bio-Tanks in general are less massive than Land Raiders. Plus, Hena could no longer Garrison his Dactilus groups, so he's bound to be against it. I think 4+ RA is quite warranted, both due to 40k's rules (Carnifexes are significantly harder to kill in 40k than pretty much any tank in the game except a Monolith), and in order to tally closer with the background. Carnifexes are also harder to kill than Wraithlords in 40k (Which have 4+ RA in Epic). |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Don't know about the Dactylis (aren't mentioned in the Codex) , but the Exocrine are from the Ravener genus too. Hierodules are less massive than Baneblades too but they have same DC and armour in Epic. The Barbed Hierodule is even better with TRA. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
(BlackLegion @ Nov. 11 2007,15:26) QUOTE Don't know about the Dactylis (aren't mentioned in the Codex) , but the Exocrine are from the Ravener genus too. True, although I rather think that short list was a bit of an afterthought (They look like slugs, Raveners look like snakes, voilla they're related). I reckon that a modern Exocrine would look more like this Boomfex. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
Yes. My first guess was that the Exocrine and Dactylis are from the same genus as the Biovore. But Codex Tyranids proved me wrong. Non-snails would be cool Leave the burrowing snakes to Raveners and Trygons (which looks exactly the same as an oversized Ravener. Heck the FW Trygon even has the exact same posture as one of the Wh40k Raveners). |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
I must think back at some proposal for a new rule which has eg a 4+ save and then the RA save on a 5+ instead of 4+. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Carnifexes |
(BlackLegion @ Nov. 11 2007,15:55) QUOTE I must think back at some proposal for a new rule which has eg a 4+ save and then the RA save on a 5+ instead of 4+. I think that was Ginger's RAx+(x+) proposal, and it was rather cool too. Eg RA4+(5+) would give you a 4+, then a 5+. It'd require a change in the core rules though. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|