Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

thoughts on jetbikes
jfrazell
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:21 pm
Posts: 144
Curse you Tactica and your persuasive use of facts and logic ?:O ???? ?:D

_________________
"Advance to the Rear!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
John,

LMAO!

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:11 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I think it's an oddity of the 40K mechanics that allows Jetbikes to be attacked in hand to hand.

It most definitely is at odds with virtually all the background material.  There are numerous examples of jetbikes rising above the ground for more than just a "jetpack jump" equivalent.  In fact, when 40K had actual pop-up rules, Eldar jetbikes had the same pop-up ability as any other skimmer.

It's being proposed solely as a balancing issue and not as a "to make it fit with background" issue.  Obviously, we can rewrite the background to fit if it is necessary but I don't think it is because other options have yet to be explored.  I would much rather see a point increase if they are too powerful than change them to Jump Packs.  After all, a better but more expensive unit is more in keeping with the "elite and fragile" feel the Eldar are supposed to have than a "cheap and plentiful" horde-o-jetbikes.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Regards to thinking its an oddity of the 40K mechanics... that's a fair opinon, but you could probably make the same argument about several 40K rules if not every one of them. I'm sure somebody out there would argue that Khorne Greater daemons should not be able to be beat in H-t-H combat. Its just a fault of the game mechanics that he's only initiative 4. I can't really debate opinons of how things "should work" in the other system. Fact is - somebody closer to development than you are I made the decision that they would work like the way they do.

Franchise conceptual alignment seems to be a good thing, even if we don't agree with how a particular mechanic works, so... all I was pointing out is that current proposal works to align to current core design main game principles for jetbikes. ?

Regards to older rules (jetbikes skimming) that have been revised in 4th edition, I think you have to look to current conventions for wisdom. See virus bomb, strategy cards, vortex gernades... etc. IMHO, the designers have done away with older versions of rules - for a reason. Maybe that was mechanics or complexity... maybe it was legacy rules abuse... maybe the "new" vision of what a jetbike is in the designers eyes is different than your/my vision. Maybe it always has been and they are just now correcting it... Again, all we can say for sure is - it was changed in the current version of the game and it affected all jetbikes across the board, not just the Eldar.

We also know there are very different rules for infantry and vehicles. Finally, we know jetbikes are definitely more infantry than vehicles - as are all bikes.

To your third point, regardless of why the E:A rule is ?being proposed, if the E:A Eldar jetbike proposal both 1) solves current problems, and 2) aligns with current core design wisdom - it can't be too far from the mark in my book. For - whatever that's worth anyway. :)

And yes - I have an Eldar army in E:A. Honda painted it up, I love the list. I think the Jetbike proposal is on mark - at least conceptually.

Some of the other proposals... well, I guess that's for another thread. ;)

'wave'




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:13 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
"Jump packs" is not necessarily in line with "core design" (and I'm curious as to why you came up with that as your gold standard).  You've used an interpretation of it to justify the stats.  Fair enough, that's part of the process and it's a good explanation.  If it has to diverge from previous canon, that's workable.

However, the core design has been that jetbikes have all the properties of skimmers in every version of the 40K rules and, just as importantly, in every version of the Epic rules.

==

Edit:  If anyone was offended by the tone of my pre-edit post, I apologize.  It was late when I wrote it and it sounded rather more nasty than intended.  If the above is not an improvement, please interpret it as simple comment.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
Eldar Jetbikes, specifically, actually have a few properties that normal skimmers DON'T. Most notably the ability to move 6" freely in the assault phase in any direction (like Tau Jump Packs), allowing them potentially 50% more movement then any other jet-bikes in the game every turn. 12" forwards, fire, 6" back to avoid the return fire. Skimmers also work different in 40K then in Epic. In 40K a skimmer can stop over terrain freely and never has to take Dangerous Terrain checks unless it wants the bonuses of being in Cover. Personally, I like the idea that they should be suceptible to melee assaults, but I don't think it's a required part of the list changes. I'd be just as happy with Save: 5+ and/or FF 5+. Save 5+ would be preferable for me. With 3x twin-linked shuriken catapults (Potentially 2x twin-linked catapults and 1x cannon) you could easily see FF 4+ working. But with only 3 dudes with T3(4) and Save 3+ they're not going to be as resilient as 5 Space Marines with T4 and Save 3+. Marines have roughly 65% more wounds then the bikers. And while 3x twin-linked catapults might well match 5x non-twin-linked bolters, they certainly won't be able to sustain the same level of defensive capacity as the marines do. Or as Space Marine bikers, who would be 3 guys at 3+ saves and T4(5) can, who can bounce things like shurikens, lasguns and even bolters without caring significantly (Needing 5+s or 6+s to wound is harsh). Seems to fit with the over-all style of the eldar as 'Hit hard, hit fast, get crushed if you hang around' army too. The only items in the list I think have legitimate reasons to be very tough to hurt are the Wraithguard and the Wraithlord, who exist in the list explicitely for that ability. That's really what they're the best at, surviving enemy fire and throwing out their own in return.

In any case. I'd like to see some change on the bikes, as the current stats/cost just seem weird to me... They're really cheap, and every time I go to design a Biel-Tan army I can't help but think 'I have 400 points left... I'll take a pair of windriders with vypers' simply because they're comparatively resilient, cheap and fast-moving objective-grabbing individuals who can hold their own in fire-fights and let me shoot at enemies to prep formations for other assaults.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mohawk
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:04 am
Posts: 81
/agree with Neal - been playing the 40k universe the last 17 years and the jetbikes has never been something else than a full skimmer untill the last wh40k rules. (Which clearly is as corupptable as the erlier version despite removing vortex etc.)

IMHO they should have 5+ save (no need to change shining spears since they are better basically). If that wont sort the problem the cost should be raised.

If they are not allowed to be skimmers they should, as I brought up in the SG forums, be allowed the Tau Jump Pack rules since thats what the wh40k jetbike of today should translate to in epic .

The lance consept is beeing consisdered in the Tyranid list, why cant jetbikes borrow Tau jump pack rules?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
If your jetbikes get my Jet Pack rule, I want Lance for my Vespids! ;)

For you older hands, did Jetbikes in 2nd edition have an armor value, and did Marine Bikes have an armor value?  

Also, Y'all might want to hold off, as the new Eldar codex is due out in September (?).  There are a lot of changes that have been rumored in the new 'dex, many of which I like enough to want to start playing Eldar.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
ALL bikes in 2nd edition had armor values. Vehicles worked far far different back then, each vehicle having separate armor-values for different 'parts' and a random chart to determine where you hit. Land Raiders, for instance, had 22 front and side armor, 20 rear armor, and had armor listings for their tracks and sponsons. Bikes had armor values with a 2/3 chance to hit the bike and 1/3 to hit the rider, as I recall. Bike-hits were essentially vehicle hits, rider hits were normal injuries. Was very fiddly, and a serious pain to deal with, but made the bikes a distinctly different beast then the normal infantry (STandard basic weapons would often times just bounce off the bike if you hit it, as most were just 4+D6 or so for armor pen and the bikes were front/side armor 11-12 as I recall).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
OK, that's what I thought, but I only played a couple of games under the 2nd edition rules and didn't remember clearly.  The vehicle system's OK for a small (less-than-platoon) skirmish, but really fiddly for the near-company level game that modern 40k has evolved into.  Of course, that was when a Lascannon had 3d6 armor penetration.

Also, don't Eldar Jetbikes have Hit&Run right now (as LVs)?  The Tau jetpack rule is a nerfed version of Eldar H&R, since the Tau couldn't just take H&R (the Eldar had it first).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
Eldar Jet Bikes have H&R (everything in Eldar does. They're Infantry, Vypers are LVs). And yes, 2nd edition was horrible at large scale (It was never MEANT for large scale, it was meant for small-scale skirmish actions with 20-30 guys to a side).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mohawk
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:04 am
Posts: 81

(Lion in the Stars @ Aug. 10 2006,00:20)
QUOTE
(snip)

Also, don't Eldar Jetbikes have Hit&Run right now (as LVs)? ?The Tau jetpack rule is a nerfed version of Eldar H&R, since the Tau couldn't just take H&R (the Eldar had it first).

well they have hit and run - outside engagements, but their ability to avoid CC in an engagement will be nullified by making them jumppackers instead of skimmers.

My arguement is that they have that ability (at engagement level) still in wh40k dispite beeing "infantery" and if the lose skimmer in E:A the closest thing available to keep thier "elusiveness" would be something like the Tau Jump Pack rules.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

(nealhunt @ Aug. 07 2006,20:13)
QUOTE


However, the core design has been that jetbikes have all the properties of skimmers in every version of the 40K rules and, just as importantly, in every version of the Epic rules.


NH (and Mohawk),

I'll respectfully disagree. Jetbike infantry and vehicular skimmers are not the same in core design fluff or core design rules. They never have been. I've played since Rogue Trader in which they were not present and throught the years to see their inseption in 2nd edition.

Illusia seems to have pointed out most of the obvious differences both now and then - that counter your quoted statement NH.

I really don't want to derail the conversation into a tit/tat type of debate though. Suffice it to say that my original post on Jump Packs in E:A holds true. The change solves current E:A jet bike problems and perhaps only as a side benefit, it happens to align with core deisgn appearent intentions.

Who knows though - the new Eldar Codex could change all that... or simply reinforce my statement. Time will tell soon enough.

I'll leave it at that.




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:56 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I'll respectfully disagree.


It was never asserted that "jetbike infantry and vehicular skimmers are... the same in core design fluff or core design rules."  You can't disagree with something that no one said.

Or, well, you can but I'm not sure why you'd want to.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
NH,

Very well, if that was not your intention - then I guess I've misunderstood your statements above... . I appoligize for drawing any erroneous conclusions from your above posts.

I guess I'm at a loss at your point in this entire thread then though.

Example: Now I have no idea of what you meant by "properties" in this statement quoting what you said above... ????

the core design has been that jetbikes have all the properties of skimmers in every version of the 40K rules and, just as importantly, in every version of the Epic rules.


Regardless though, it sounds like we generally agree on Sotec's approach the end, so... great... I think. :p




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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