Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[Discussion] Light Vehicles?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=15416		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Checked the Wh40k stats for Tyranid Warriors and Raveners. They have the same number of Wounds (2) and Toughness (4) as Ork Nobs but better armour (5+ instead of 6+). But both Tyranid Warriors and Ork Nobz can upgrade to a 4+ save.

So why are Tyranid Warriors and Raveners Light Vehicles while Ork Nobz aren't?

I think we need a new unit type: Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry is treated in every way as Infantry but can't use Armoured Vehicles as cover and can be targeted with AP- and AT-weapons.

Thats the analogy to Light Vehicles wich are treated in every way as Armoured Vehicles but Infantry can't use them as cover and can be targeted by AP and AT-weapons.

This or both Tyranid Warriors and Raveners should get back to Infantry status.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
I still think they should go back to infantry, along with Zoanthropes & Biovores too incidentally.
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Quote: (BlackLegion @ 24 Apr. 2009, 12:03 )

I think we need a new unit type: Heavy Infantry. Heavy Infantry is treated in every way as Infantry but can't use Armoured Vehicles as cover and can be targeted with AP- and AT-weapons.

Well, this is, essentially, how the Tyranid Warriors and Raveners are now treated in the Tyranid list, and it was done this way to act as "heavy infantry", without adding a whole new unit type.

Raveners and Tyranid Warriors are *much* bigger than Guants, so can be visually identified and fired at... the whole concept of "Shoot the big ones!"
Author:  lord_bruno [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
SM Terminators, IG Ogryns, Eldar WraithGuard, and Necron Destroyers are bigger than other infantry  :shutup: , they have never been LV.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
I think Chroma would like to make all the above into 'Heavy Infantry' too?
Author:  GlynG [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
I prefer them being LV and think it's quite appropriate in the Tyranid list and with the 'shoot the big ones!' notion. In part it's a size thing in comparison to the surrounding creatures - a tyranid warrior is much larger than a gaunt, while nobz are not that much bigger than the boyz around them.

Just as points values and abilities for units really need to be properly balanced and considered in the context of their army and what else is around and simple cross-army comparisons aren't always helpful and necessary to make comparable, I have no problem with Tyranid Warriors being LV in their list but Ogryns not being in theirs say.
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
I'd say, if you've got the chance, to look at the "size comparison chart" in the back of Imperial Armour IV: The Anphelion Project.  Or just use your 40k models, if you've got them!

Tyranid Warriors (and Raveners) are quite a bit bigger than Terminators or Wraithguard... and *tower* over Guants... they are readily identifiable as "Big Ones" and would get *more* than their fair share of enemy fire directed at them.
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Unit type is also more than just size.  It's based in part on the assumptions of what constitutes a "unit."

A Terminator or Nob unit is infantry, which is 3-7 troopers with the stats being based on an average of 5.  Those models are individually vulnerable to weapons designated as AT in Epic but as a squad they can take a couple kills and remain functional as a squad.  AT weapons are designated as being ineffective in Epic.

In contrast, a Tyranid Warrior stand is 2-4, with the assumption being an average of 3.  They do not remain combat ready as a squad/stand/brood after more than 1 kill.  Therefore the low-volume AT "kills" do render them ineffective.

===

I agree a Heavy Infantry designation would be extremely useful for units that should be as maneuverable as normal infantry but also vulnerable to AT fire - various Nids, Tau Broadsides, etc..
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Quote: (nealhunt @ 24 Apr. 2009, 14:08 )

In contrast, a Tyranid Warrior stand is 2-4, with the assumption being an average of 3.  They do not remain combat ready as a squad/stand/brood after more than 1 kill.  Therefore the low-volume AT "kills" do render them ineffective.

By that logic all mounted infantry should be vulnerable to AT fire.
Author:  Jeridian [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Adding 'Light Vehicle' to any unit is a death sentence that should never be taken lightly. All the downsides of a tank (no cover, dangerous terrain) whilst being hit as infantry (usually easier to hit rolls). The rule might as well be 'Suck'.

But then, you know my opinion on the 'Suck' rule,  :vD

I think the Heavy Infantry rule has merit, the only problem is it's an addition to the 'core rules' of the game, rather than an army special rule add-on.
Has the sacred tome of Epic Armageddon received core rule additions before?
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Quote: (Jeridian @ 24 Apr. 2009, 15:36 )

Adding 'Light Vehicle' to any unit is a death sentence that should never be taken lightly. All the downsides of a tank (no cover, dangerous terrain) whilst being hit as infantry (usually easier to hit rolls). The rule might as well be 'Suck'.

Er... you still get the -1 to hit for being in cover, and Tyranid LVs and AVs ignore dangerous terrain tests... and if the enemy is firing AP at your formation, Gaunts can "catch the bullets".

It's not a "death sentence", heck, it's barely been a blip on the radar in any games that have been played as a significant detriment at all.  It "encourages" mixed formations, which are appropriate for Phase IV, which is, in my opinion, a good thing.

What the Tyranid LVs have is, for all most all intents and purposes, "heavy infantry"... it'll have the same targetting effects as the current LV status so I'm not sure why you'd see that as a "better"?

And there's no "sacred tomes" for EPIC, there's GW Official and everyone else... stuff gets added and changed in the "everyone else" part all the time.  One group of "everyone else", the NetEA ERC is prepping for a "rules review" in May/June that will probably see rules added.
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Quote: (zombocom @ 24 Apr. 2009, 14:17 )

Quote: (nealhunt @ 24 Apr. 2009, 14:08 )

In contrast, a Tyranid Warrior stand is 2-4, with the assumption being an average of 3.  They do not remain combat ready as a squad/stand/brood after more than 1 kill.  Therefore the low-volume AT "kills" do render them ineffective.

By that logic all mounted infantry should be vulnerable to AT fire.

Yep, but you cut the part where I pointed out that unit composition is an additional factor to consider, not the sole determination.
Author:  Hojyn [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  [Discussion] Light Vehicles?
Well, I think giving LV to Warriors goes a long way towards balancing the list.

It suddenly makes rarely used units more interesting AND it compensates the numerous advantages of the Tyranids (expendable units, no dangerous terrain tests, spawning, etc.).

I really, really like this change and I'd be sad to see it go.
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/