Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Raiders 2.0 DRAFT http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17879 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Moscovian [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
UPDATED FEB-11-2010Here is a link for Raiders 2.0 DRAFT.  I really don't want to print 3.0 or even a 2.0.1 so your eyes will be appreciated. Cybershadow has uploaded it to Tactical Command now. It is an uncompressed file and CS mentioned it seemed a little slow. If you have problems or feedback on that, feel free to post it here. Check anything and everything you can and post it here.  If you have a problem with the rules or stats PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS IT ON THIS THREAD.  Instead find the appropriate thread and post it there.  This is for editing errors only.  I want to here from everybody but I've got to keep this organized.  Trust me- I don't let a Necron, Dark Eldar, or Minervan thread go unnoticed. NOTE: The Necron Rule has already been re-written since this pdf was created and will read as follows on future versions: Quote: Necron technology allows many of its units to repair themselves at an accelerated rate. This is reflected as the Necron ability in a unit’s datasheet. Units with the Necron ability that have been destroyed can regenerate. Formations can return one previously destroyed Necron unit in the end phase of each turn either on or off the board. In addition, if a formation regroups on board it can use the dice rolls to either return units with the Necron ability to play or to remove blast markers or both (e.g., if you rolled a ‘2’ you could return 2 units to play, remove 2 blast markers, or return 1 unit and remove 1 blast marker). Formations off board are restricted to using their regroup function to remove blast markers only. |
Author: | Chroma [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
FileShare is indicating that the size of the file, 48MB, is too large for downloads for non-registered account users. Is it too large to send to the TacComm wiki File Galleries? |
Author: | Vaaish [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
It doesn't seem to let you downolad the PDF unless you have an upgraded account with them and their PDF viewer is beyond slow, so I guess I'll just have to wait until it drops over here to the forums. |
Author: | Carrington [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Ditto. Could you upload it to google documents? For example: |
Author: | CyberShadow [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Mosc, you could drop it in an email to me. |
Author: | Chroma [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Quote: (CyberShadow @ Feb. 08 2010, 22:39 ) Mosc, you could drop it in an email to me. Since the file is over 40MB in size, most email programs are going to balk at that. Bill, touch base with me and we'll see if we can shrink that in any way. |
Author: | Moscovian [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
I just sent my logon to Cybershadow and he can grab it from there. Once he puts it out here, you can have your way with it, Chroma. ![]() Patience, folks. |
Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Okay, it is up. Check the top of this thread for the link or just go here. http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive ... iders.html My prediction: Hena will find more grammatical and spelling errors than anyone whose native tongue is English. ![]() |
Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
I am... very slowly... downloading... ... ...it. More comments later! |
Author: | Vaaish [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
hehe.... I am as well. At this rate it should be done by lunch ![]() |
Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Got the file, and will look over in more detail soon. First big question: Were no changes made to the Minervan list and units at all? |
Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
From the Design Notes section: Quote: Version 1.9 …is the current version in Epic: Raiders 2.0. The Stormhammer is only one major change to the list. After extensive play testing the unit over-performed when compared to the other Super Heavies. It had its stats changed from being a heavy shooter to an assaulting SHT. This slotted the Stormhammer into a roll not filled by the other tanks and is more reflective of the weapons shown on the model. The chart for calculating Leman Russ costs appears different to eliminate the need to subtract, but the actual cost has not changed. While there were some concerns about flexibility and activation count, at the end of the day the Stormhammer was the only concern that really needed addressing. I went through the threads and couldn't find anything else that required any attention. The DE had no stat changes to anything and only minor point changes. Necrons were the only real problematic list. |
Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Quote: While there were some concerns about flexibility and activation count, at the end of the day the Stormhammer was the only concern that really needed addressing. I went through the threads and couldn't find anything else that required any attention. Commonly agreed the Stormsword is underpowered. It had its main gun raised to 45cm in the Krieg list more than a year ago, and now recieves no complaints. Commonly agreed the Stormblade is overpowered. It had its Firefight rating dropped to 5+ in the Krieg list more than a year ago, and now recieves no complaints. IIRC you commented on and agreed with those two changes when they were raised for the Minervans. |
Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Quote: (Moscovian @ Feb. 11 2010, 18:42 ) The chart for calculating Leman Russ costs appears different to eliminate the need to subtract, but the actual cost has not changed. There's still a subtraction in there for Thunderers. |
Author: | Vaaish [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Raiders 2.0 DRAFT |
Necrons: Wasn't the Armored Phalanx dropped from the list when the monolith formation changes were made? I'm not too fond of the naming conventions and minor layout idiosyncrasies on the necron army list page. It seems a little haphazard in implementation with Phalanx and Maniple thrown around and the asterisk to add a supreme commander. I'd like to see these adjusted to have all of them use maniple rather than Phalanx. I realize some of this comes from the 40k apocalypse naming conventions but I think the list would look more cohesive with these changes. IE: Armored Phalanx becomes Obelisk Maniple Monolith Phalanx becomes Monolith Maniple Monolith Maniple becomes Armored Maniple I'd also like the see the supreme commander upgrade appear in the upgrade list rather than as a side note at the bottom. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |