I'm thinking ork bikes vs scorchers, howling banshees vs other aspects/guardians etc etc

Is it just something to do with the fact that the applicability and utility of cc specialists is much less than ff, and therefore, if roughly the same price, less worth taking?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

As a starting point, sure, CC specialists are more "situational" than FF specialists, since CC is comparatively rare. First, its harder to get in CC due to the distance. Second, you can't provide Support Fire with a CC ability.

However, there are feedback loops in place. Since FF is, in general, more useful than CC, it means that people tend to prefer FF troops. When you take lots of CC troops, you can bet on the enemy having the bulk of his abilities in FF, which gives you an advantage if you can, in fact, get in CC. For example, when picking the loadout of a Thunderhawk, you can pick CC specialists (Termies or Assault Marines) or FF Devastators. Against FF enemies like the IG or most Eldar, you're better off using CC, damping the enemy's strong FF and exploiting their relatively weak CC.

Many unit types buck the basic trend, of course. Ork Boyz, for example, are not all that great in getting to CC, but they're still good at it when they happen to make it. Some CC troops excel in *getting to CC*. Rough Riders and other Infiltrators are the obvious case, as are T-Hawk riders and Teleporters. These guys have both a CC ability *and* the ability to get in CC.

I'd guess that, due to the above, having a CC advantage is generally more of an advantage than having a FF advantage. However, it is also more difficult to achieve. Building on CC is taking a big chance. Building on FF is about lowering risks.

Yeah, Lander Riders, Teleporters and even Infiltrators are good at getting into the 'situation' but are of less once 'fired'.

I guess epic just proves that the gun is (generally) mightier than the sword (which is fine) but has an assumption has been made in some cases, in terms of costings, that CC and FF are equivalent?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Well, Skorchas are a bad example, because they are just a little bit over the top... and they're the best FF unit in the Ork army.

Compared to Warbikes, however, they're Light Vehicles as opposed to Infantry, so they're more likely to get shot up *before* they get to exploit their FF strength, so that, I believe, brings them closer to the same "value".

Personally, I really like Warbuggies, as they "do both" okay.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Yet despite the LV status of a skorcha, they are taken far more often than bikes, here in the UK at least; Indicating that players here value them far more

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

SM Devastators are more costly per stand than both Tacticals and Assault.
Termagants are 6+CC, 5+FF while Hormagaunts can't FF but get a 5+CC, an extra CC attack and infiltrator.

I would say as it stands the FF stat is already weighted more heavily in terms of cost than CC, especially when you take into account that CC specialists get quite a few special rules and extra attacks to balance a usually weak FF stat.

I believe that's mainly because the are the only cheap, "good" FF unit in the Ork army; plus they've got an AP4+ ignore cover shot, so they're *AWESOME* for assault preparation.

I'd like to see their Armour Save reduced to 6+ to represent their volatile fuel tanks, and that might tone them down to "equal" status of the other two KoS options.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I'd have to argue that yes CC troops are inherently weaker than FF troops.

FF troops can fight well up to 15cm away.
FF troops can provide Supporting Fire.
FF troops almost always have a Firepower ability allowing them to make use of Advance, Double, Overwatch and Sustain where CC troops rarely can.

If we throw Skimmers into the argument, CC troops become something of a joke.

Best example is Devastators vs Assault Marines- I've gone from 2 Assault formations to none, whilst increasing my Devastator numbers.

There is no 'counter-Skimmer' rule to force FF troops to use their CC at all times.

If you've not guessed Eldar are a regular opponent of mine, Skimmers mean I don't bother with purely CC troops.

Inherently weaker, yes in general terms as opposed to specific situations. But that's OK. The question is though, has the value of cc units been overestimated in many cases?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

They are all priced based on optimal use, which generally means including something to help them reach CC.  They tend to be very good in those situations (partly due to the reasons Asaura outlined).  However, when not kitted out to reach CC, the value of them tends to fall short.

Unfortunately, not all the "synergy" value of the kit can be built into the rest of the kit, because the rest of the kit isn't always used for getting CC troops into CC.  The classic case is, of course, the SM Thawk; the force multiplier for dumping Devs into assault simply isn't as large as for putting Assault Marines into CC, so you have to split up the surplus value across all the units involved as best you can.

_________________
Neal

So the price goes up due to an inherent of external ability to be inserted into cc, and reduced again due to their lack of ability in other situations compared to FF choices.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

It's a bit of a hangover from 40k. In 40k Combat and Shooting are about equally effective and equally important. In Epic, Shooting and Firefighting are much more common than Close Combat, so Close Combat is inherently less effective.

Ironically this is one of the reasons the Tau list has struggled for so long, depsite their lack of CC specialists. In 40k Tau are extremely good at shooting, but this is balanced by their terrible CC ability. Unfortunately in epic this is not much of a downside, so their FF has to be reduced as well etc etc etc...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I hate to be picky, but I think you're mixing up two different things: effectiveness and commonality. Shooting and firefighting are more common than close combat, but I would argue that close combat can be far more effective than the former two.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I can agree that a well executed Engagement can break an enemy far quicker and more efficiently than prolonged Firepower shooting.

But close combat far more effective than firefight- I strongly disagree.

Note, I said can be more effective. I didn't mean to imply that is always more effective.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart