| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Demolishers http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11207 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | Ilushia [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
The more I hang around here, the more I seem to see how many people really don't like the Demolisher change. I admit to being amongst them, as while I DO think the demolisher deserves to be better then AP 3/AT 4+ IC, I don't think it deserves to be MW 4+ IC, at least not at long ranges. The demolisher is primarily a siege weapon as I understand it, used to break walls at very short ranges, and to flush enemies out of cover and suppress them at longer ranges. It does not have much accuracy beyond very short range, despite having extremely high kill power. This, to me, adds up to it being pretty good at range in Epic, but not killing things instantly typically. Ranged fire in EA tends to be less powerful then in 40K as well (Look at the Basilisk's direct-fire stats and compare it to what it does to a squad of marines in 40K, for instance). Add these things together and you get a weapon which should utterly annihilate things at short range, and be mostly good for suppression at longer ranges. So I'd propose something like this: Demolisher Cannon/30cm/AP3+ AT4+/Ignore Cover AND (15cm)/FF weapon/Macroweapon Notes: Demolisher cannons add Macroweapon to the vehicles basic firefight attack. This replicates the role it seems to play in both the background and the game at 40K scale: it's a short range kills-anything weapon or a somewhat longer range suppression weapon which can kill things (especially lightly armored things) at longer ranges with large AoE templates. Get it up near something, though, and it'll blow through armor pretty effortlessly on anything short of terminators or land raiders. Not sure anyone cares at this point, but considering I know of atleast 3 or 4 people who have actively voiced complaints about the Demolisher change, I figure I'll throw an idea out there. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Whilst that stat is probably fine for Leman Russ Demolishers and Vindicators, it makes Baneblades incredibly powerful. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Q: why would having a MW firefight and a standard AP/AT shot make it more powerful than having a MW shot? |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
(Moscovian @ Dec. 12 2007,17:06) QUOTE Q: why would having a MW firefight and a standard AP/AT shot make it more powerful than having a MW shot? Because the baneblade has 3 shots in a firefight, all of which would become macro... |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
I'm with Hena on this. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
(zombocom @ Dec. 12 2007,12:15) QUOTE (Moscovian @ Dec. 12 2007,17:06) QUOTE Q: why would having a MW firefight and a standard AP/AT shot make it more powerful than having a MW shot? Because the baneblade has 3 shots in a firefight, all of which would become macro... Given that the IG play as a very 'shooty' army I don't know if this would mess things up that much. Even if it did mean the Baneblade got turned around some, I'd rather have the majority of units affected positively. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
I haven't used Demolisher's in over a year but I am baffled how if they were balanced before (and they seemed to be) how they are not worth more now. Perhaps if the change has to be made for the marines change the pattern into Mars and give it hve bolters/hve flamers? As to the change for the marines I'm not in touch with 40k stats, but I always thought it was anti cover weapon, esp. vs infantry. MW4+ IC is worse verses such infantry but better verses armour. Is this the intent? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
(The_Real_Chris @ Dec. 12 2007,17:42) QUOTE As to the change for the marines I'm not in touch with 40k stats, but I always thought it was anti cover weapon, esp. vs infantry. MW4+ IC is worse verses such infantry but better verses armour. Is this the intent? The Demolisher in 40k has no ignore cover abilities. In 40k, it is basically a much shorter ranged version of the Leman Russ battlecannon, except it is also considerably more powerful (S10, AP2, meaning that even Terminator armour is punched aside by the Demolisher cannon). |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
In Wh40k it works exactly as a Battlecannon but with short range (24") higher Strenght (10 insteads of  and Armourpiercing 2 (and thus no infantry armour has a save against it, only invulnerable saves will work).It has no special ability against models in cover. EDIT: Damn to late  But Terminators still can use their 5+ Invulnerable Save. Only the 2+ regular save will be ignored due to ArmourPiercing 2. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Further to the above, it will also insta-kill most multi-wound characters (Anything that is Toughness 5 or below). |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Hena, I wasn't for changing the demolisher AT ALL. Posted on: Aug. 18 2007,06:48 --------------------------------------------------- I am slightly against it because of the problems it causes over multiple lists. If there were a way to help the SMs out but leave everything alone I'd be okay with it. --------------------------------------------------- Posted on: Aug. 20 2007,08:27 Well, my mind really is made up in a sense. My intent is to limit the number of MWs we are adding en toto to the game of Epic to one. If we can limit it only to the SMs, then I am for it. If we have to give it to the Baneblade and the Russ then I am against it and vote for an alternative to improving it (any alternative, really - maybe a AP3+/AT3+ IC?) Sometimes the right answers don't fall into the neat little boxes we build for them, unfortunately. This may be why they never gave the MW to the Demolisher in the first place, incidentally. Perhaps they could never reconcile the two lists? This poll on the demolisher wasn't exactly a landslide vote either. 22 for, 15 against, 3 for other. I'm just lending an ear to a potential solution. Is the Baneblade used that much in assaults? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Baneblades are very good in assaults. - Good firefight stat (4+) - Impressive armour save - Inspiring commissar - unit strength 9 means possible outnumbering bonus Just consider what a Baneblade company with FF4+ Macro weapon will do to... anything! |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Demolishers |
Fair enough... Ilushia, it won't work. (sigh) I just wish there was another way to fix it. |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|