Interesting change to the Basilisk ...
I'm not sure I like it ... but it is unique !
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=301 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Sep 11, 2003 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
From Jervis: =============================== Changes To The Guard =================== Basilisk Earthshaker becomes 120cm, AP4+/AT4+ _or_ 1BP, indirect fire. Bombard becomes 45cm, 2BP, slow-firing, ignore cover, indirect fire. Manticore is unchanged. Arty Company becomes: Salamander, plus 3 Arty Batteries chosen from the following list: Basilisk battery (3 units), Manticore battery (3 units); 650 points Arty Btty becomes: One battery chosen from the following list: Basilisk battery (3 units), Bombard battery (3 units), Manticore battery (3 units); 250 points Allow 2 support formations per company Change the costs of the following upgrades: Infantry platoon 100 points (was 150) Tank Squadron 200 points (was 250) Griffon Squadron 100 points (was 150) Hellhound Squadron 100 points (was 150) Ork Army List =========== Remove the requirement to take big formations. Instead I'll list the points values for each size (Basic/Big/'Uge). See below for examples: Warband, Stormboyz, Assault Boat: 250/400/550 Stompamob, F/Bs: 200/300/425 KOS, Blitz Brigade, Gunzmob: 125/200/275 Note that the cost of a Big warband stays the same, basic warbands cost extra, and 'Uge warbands get a slight discount. ========================== I can dig it. For those who say the playtesters have no input, the IG arty company is what I proposed verbatim, and Jervis took off the Big Formation rule for the Orks. WHOOT!!1! |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Interesting change to the Basilisk ... I'm not sure I like it ... but it is unique !
|
|
| Author: | Tas [ Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
The important IG changes here, I think, are the 2 support formations and those to Arty. The Arty Company is now cheaper than individual batteries, but can longer contain Bombards Bombards now form their own seperate batteries, but have Ignore Cover. Thus infantry that previously relied on cover for a save (like IG, 'some Nids, Guardians) wont get one...its splat time with 6BP |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Sep 12, 2003 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
We still decided to give everything with No Save a Save of 6. We just don't like No Save, that was one of the things we really didn't like about SM2, among others. And a 6 Save is still not that big anyway, but we prefer it ... But the updated FA rules are interesting ... Maybe Jervis is finally giving FA/Indirect Fire it's due ? 
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Maksim: Get over to the playtest board. Jervis has stated that he might allow upgrades to multiply for the Big and Uge formations. That would mean you could take multiple supastompas and multiple battlefortresses with supagunz. Go, go, go... 
|
|
| Author: | netepic [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
I like the changes to the ork list - gonna have to rewrite my painting schedule now to account for the new prices but for a better list, it isn't an issue. In fact, yeah, it looks good. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
I agree that it is a significant improvement. |
|
| Author: | netepic [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
I like the changes to the ork list - gonna have to rewrite my painting schedule now to account for the new prices but for a better list, it isn't an issue. In fact, yeah, it looks really good. |
|
| Author: | netepic [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Interesting update on the Battlewagon saga - they appear to be returning to the SM/TL version of the Battlewagon, which should make things a lot less confusing. FROM JERVIS: ... and back again. First of all, I'll look again at the costs of the Stompamob. Anyway, returning to the BW. By the time I'd spoken to Andy and he'd underlined that he basically saw it as a bigger version of the trukk, I'd already asked Mark Bedford to make a *big* Battlewagon model based on the pics in the 40K codex. The model that Mark made was huge, very nearly battlefortress sized, and when Andy saw it that's exactly what he said "It's a battlefortress, Jervis, not a battlewagon". So, we headed back to the drawing board. As I wrestled with the various different options, I remembered that early in testing we'd combined guntrukks and gunwagons in a single catagory, as the differences between the two had been too fine to really show up well in Epic, and also because this allowed us to use a wider range of models in our Blitz Brigades (for example, Bowelburners had been gun trukks while Lungburstas had been gunwagons - by combining the two it was both easier to play Orks, and also Ork formations become more varied and eclectic in their mix of models). So, I thought, why not combine wartrukks and battlewagonz into a single catagory called 'wagonz'. Just as Gunwagonz have stats based on an average of of the stats for guntrukkz and gunwagonz, the 'wagonz' could have a set of stats based on the average between the trukk and battlewagon. After much talking and arguing and looking at models i have decided that this is the best path to take for the smaller Ork transport vehicles. Now, I *know* that some of you will throw up your hands at this and say it is an example of the abstraction that put people of E40K, etc etc. However, I really don't think this is the case. First of all, with the Orks there *has* to be an element of abstraction in the list, because categorising Ork vehicles goes completely against the Ork's background; the fact of the matter is that no two Ork vehicles are really ever exactly the same - they are all 'one-offs' and the Ork lists need to reflect this _in as playable a manner as possible_. This second point is really important, as one thing that became clear as we compared the models for trukks and battlewagonz (keeping in Mind Andy's edict on the size of the BW) was that it was hard to tell at a glance where the trukk models we had made stopped, and the battlewagonz models started. As both sorts of units could be in the same formation this could lead to a lot of confusion, if not on the part of the Orks then at least for their opponents. The same really didn't apply to the fortress sized models, which were clearly in a different category to the smaller vehicles. Anyway, taking into account all these things wartrukz and battlewagons will be going from the Ork list, to be replaced by 'wagonz'. Wagonz will have the following stats: Armoured vehicle, speed 30cm, armour save 5+, two big shootas, transport 2 units. The gunwagonz/flakwagonz will stay the same, effectively replacing the shootas and one 'space' and transport capacity of the 'wagon' for better weapons. This still left me with Mark's really rather nice ex-battlewagon-and-now-battlefortress sized model. I decidded to incorporate it into the lists by making it a 'battlefortress' that has one Big Gun and four Big Shootas, that can transport eight boyz stands, and adding a 'gunfortress' to the list, which will be represented by one of the old battlefortress models for E40K, and which has three big gunz and five big shootas, but can only carry four boyz. In this way the fortresses mirror what happens with the wagonz. This will give us (in order of size) buggies/wagonz/fortresses, with wagonz and forts getting transport versions and gun versions to choose from. Battlewagonz and trukkz merge, but battlefortresses split into two versions. Phew! I'll be incorporating these changes into the updated Ork list as soon as I can - later today if possible. Before I do I just need to check that the models we have fit well in the new catagories, and other fun range management stuff like that (which is why i didn't make the changes earlier when updating the lists) Best regards, Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic | |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
A lot less confusing except that Jervis seems to be wholesale changing the terminology.  I really think this is turning into a radical rewrite of the Ork list, with very little playtest time left. Just over a month, in fact. As such, I'm a bit nervous. I very much like the style, both with the basic/big/uge points cost and the new Transport/Armor/Big/Small vehicle quadrants. And the points certainly look okay, but there's just not enough time to try to break the list. |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Well I thought that the Gunwagon, Guntruk, Battlewagon, Battlefortress, etc. conundrum was just plain goofy ! ?I'm glad he/they decided to clean it up but the explaination reads like "stereo instructions" ! ?More indications that the G/W E-A crew are still not sure what they want to do !  ?We kept is simple: APCs = the plastic B/Ws from SM1&2, Battlewagons (most of the models = MBTs, , Battlefortresses = Heavy Tanks, and Flakwagons are obvious. ?When a game has 6 armies (or more), with more and more versions of vehicles and models, it gets bogged down with a morass of detail. ?More detail is good if you have 4-8 (or so) models on the board, but in Epic games with dozens on the board it only slows things down. ?Big Shootas, little Shootas, Guntruk, Gunwagon, etc., etc., etc., - Get Real !!! ?Were they trying to make it confusing or what !? ? ?The E-A Orks have been very poorly handled so far ! ?
|
|
| Author: | primarch [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Hi! It's not wise to introduce to big a change so soon before its projected release, there wont be enough time to iron out all the bugs such changes may entail. In my experiences on the netepic list, army list changes or new ones for that matter need 1-2 YEARS playtest time to really fine tune them. Primarch |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Is there a need to rush the rules ? They'd do better to release the new models and then the rules later when they "iron out" the "Bugs" ! We have 3 or more sets of Epic rules now. We don't need E-A to be "half-baked" and a year from the E-A release date, start another rules rewrite called E-B ?!
|
|
| Author: | primarch [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
Hi! I agree with you Legion4, they should take their time with the rules and bring models out in the mean time. Primarch |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed army list changes - IG and Ork |
The list is up. I think the change is pretty simple, actually. ?2 classes of vehicles (AV/WE), in 2 configurations (transport/firesupport), for 4 possible vehicles. .................AV.......................WE Trans......Wagonz................Battlefortress Fire.........Gun/flakwagon......Gunfortress Jervis also put in a way for the transport configuration to carry extra grotz, which will make many people very happy. I have some reservations about the points values on the wagonz, though. He doubled the firepower from 1 Big shoota to 2, and added the Grotz transport option, but left the points the same. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|