Pathfinder question |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Pathfinder question  Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I think we can all safely say that "it had to be on the box" theory was not the key driving factor for E:A "unit options" development.
+ + + Commence Rhetorical Question + + +
In E:A, how does a(n)...
... IG commissar get an invulnerable save?
... Eldar farseer get farsight?
... Eldar Warp Spider get first strike?
... Eldar Wraithguard get Reinforced Armor?
... anyone get Fearless, SC, Inspiring, infiltrator, first strike?
... Imperial Guard Sapper get a Meltabomb?
... the list goes one, but you get the idea.
+ + + End Rhetorical Question + + +
This is just silly to me. Perhaps I missed a 'principle of development' discussion as it pertained to 'E:A Options' somewhere along the line though...
IMO, NH hit the nail on the head when he said,
Quote (Hena @ 29 Mar. 2006 (09:32))
1) Most option in 40k are not visible to epic
2) Rail rifle is option in 40k
3) Rail rifle is limited option in 40k (meaning not whole unit can get them)
So why does every unit in epic have them? |
I think your statement breaks down in #1. ?"invisible" doesn't mean "not present." ?In fact, a mix of various gear loads is assumed to be present as it would be "in real life."
CS commented on it also, but the typical gear is what would be expected according to the background, with a strong dose of the intended feel of the army according to the background and an occasional nod to the standard 40K loadouts. ?To that extent, figuring out what is and should be present is not based on a set formulat. ?It is something of an art rather than an exact science.
None of that is to disagree with your suggestions on sniper/disrupt/carbine/rifle issues. ?I'm just saying that if the manner in which things are translated into Epic varies from army to army or even unit to unit, that is not necessarily a problem. |
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
 |
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Pathfinder question Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
As an eldar player, I too am irked by the situation discussed in this topic. I mean, if I had my way, I'd have vypers with star cannons (or vypers with 2 x shuriken cannons).
Ultimately, I think there is a hierarchy that needs to be applied to various design constraints that shape a list:
1-96) Point cost/effectiveness balance in the GT scenario vs existing lists
97) Play style matches that described in background
98) Play style matches that use in 40k
99) Agreement between unit options in 40k and E:A
100) WYSIWYG matching between rules and models
It seems to me that the Tau list has degenerated into just the last 2 (which I completely, unbiasedly placed last, it just happened to support my point, no foolin'  ).
I think it would be enlightening for everyone to check and see just how much each of the existing armies is restricted in E:A compared to their counterparts in 40k. In all honesty, it seem to me like the Tau list is noticably less restricted than the rest. Whether or not their list is balanced, such a situation will always stir some ill-will.
As an aside, I would also caution against relying too greatly on the rules/fluff given (by FW) for models in the tau line aren't actually used in 40k proper (like the aircraft and super-heavies). FW makes great models (second to none), but they get poor marks in making balanced and reasonable rules. Relying on such rules will only hinder development of an official list, which will need to make reasonable compromises between Tau fluff and fairness toward the existing armies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Pathfinder question Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:59 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
Asaura
In the first instance, the idea is that we have some of these assault rifles, which are new and nice. There's not enough for everyone, and experienced folks are likely to be comfortable with their bolt-action rifles. Thus, the mix of assault rifles to long rifles is not "by design", but just something that happened.
In the second instance, we have an idea of equipping a platoon with many SMGs. This raises a problem with weapon ranges, as it'd be nice if there were at least some long-range rifles in the mix. IIRC, the solution used by the Germans was to include a few rifles in the mix (in addition to LMGs, of course). |
Thanks for the real life examples Asaura. They're quite helpful. N?1 makes me think of our pathfinder toy-rifles, while N?2 certainly makes mixed weaponry a possible choice for firewarriors.
Hena
the point was that if the rifles are a limited equipment to tau in 40k. It would follow logic that they certainly would then be in epic (as the scale to deploy them widely is completely different). |
As heavy weapons are an option for marines. It's all about identifying the logical standard issue loadout for the unit.
