(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
I really don't follow a lot of this.
1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? ?I don't understand this at all.
I'm against all the AP5+/30cm OR AT2+/75cm weapons this will bring. One weapon one range.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
2.1.2 - So far, all reports are that the Commander change is a non-issue. ?It appears to be so useless that I was thinking of just taking it out because it failed to improve Commander ability at all. ?What makes it "too good"? How could you abuse this?
For example Black Legion marines might be quite nasty to assault when they can call in their friends to the fight - every friggin unit gets a 'free' lord that happens to be a commander. I'm against it because I don't know if it's an issue or not but it can be if someone finds a way to use it properly.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? ?The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. ?This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good."
You can cover something like 1.5x units under that thing compared to normal blast marker and weapon like that would be almost always on a warhound or something similar that is both fast and can take few hits. Whatever weapon using that is not going to have AP6+ or AT6+ on its stat line because that's not 'fluffy'.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. ?What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? ?Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? ?Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. ?Why do you feel they have been especially damaged?
Hunter is the crappiest AA unit in the game but it's still something marines have to take because thunderbolts are horribly weak if your enemy even remotely knows how to play. Besides if a player wants to use a ~350 point formation to get a shot or two at some aircraft then let him. If a player can do it while getting max efficiency out of the regular troops then kudos to him. I suppose you haven't ever used your aircraft units to lure AA units to the side of the army instead of going forward? I don't understad why it's so strange that ground based units rush to shoot down planes, it's not impossible in modern warfare with radars showing there's planes coming 1000 miles away.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
4.2 Aircraft Escorts (there should be no room for 'optional' rules in the rules duh..) - There are optional rules in the rulebook already, pre-measuring, for instance. ?Should those all be removed as well?
From the rules section yes. Move them to the 'hug bear' section at the end of the book if you can't decide if it's a rule or not.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
6.14 Place Objective Markers (I'd rather see them aircrafts not being able to contest or capture on the turn they land) - Again, I'm a bit boggled. ?You favor a strong downgrade, but you would rather use the book rules than a partial downgrade?
The original post on the SG website was quite all or nothing about the entire ruleset.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
2.1.X Disposable (expendable sounds better) - The rule is okay, but you wouldn't want to use it because you don't like the name?
Yes and see above.
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
2.1.X Support craft - Personally, I think this is a unique role and interesting set of abilities. ?More to the point, these are going to be in the game because of the Tau list, just like the Lance special ability is in the game because of the Eldar list. ?Jervis created the Support Craft ability. ?The Tau were the next in line after Chaos for official status and the list is (imho) the most polished of any of the non-variant lists. ?That's as close to a done deal as anything that's not yet official.
Why do you have to put every single special rule in the rulebook? Soon it'll be 17 pages and hundreds of special rules and most of them apply to one or maybe two units or formations. It's not that hard to explain the special rules that apply to an army in the army list itself and it would be much easier to read the lists when you don't have to check through the rulebook what some special rule means.
.)
