Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Imperial Guard review
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Apr. 30 2007,16:59)
QUOTE
Baneblade (Proposed)
Type: WE
Speed: 15cm
Armor: 4+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+
Mega Battle canon: 90cm - MW3+
Co-axial autocanon: 45cm - AP5+/AT6+
Hull Heavy bolter: 30cm - AP5+
Demolisher canon: 30cm - AP3+/AT4+, Ignore Cover
2x Twin-linked Heavy Bolters: 30cm - AP4+
2x Lascannons: 45cm - AT5+


I'm against the battle cannon being MW status (Because qualitatively more powerful weapons in 40k such as the Demolisher Cannon have *not* been given MW status).

I'm also against changing the range, for similar reasons.

I can understand your reasoning, but if you are not going to upgrade the main cannon, then what do you propose?

You can't increase the number of weapons because the miniature/WYSIWYG and background don't support more weapons.

You can't increase the capabilities of any of the other weapons because the background doesn't support it. ?Never mind the "ripple effect" of changing the Demolisher Cannon on the Vindicator, Demolisher tank, of the Stormhammer. ?Or Heavy Bolters and Lascannons on every other Imperial armored vehicle.

You can't increase the capabilities of the armor, speed, CC, or Initiative rating because the background and interaction with other parts of the IG army doesn't support it. ?

You can't give any Special Abilities to the tank because the background and previous material doesn't support it. ?Thick rear armor would not be appropriate as discussed previously.

You can change the FF value to 3+, but your justification's interaction with background would be shaky and it would not be sufficient in my opinion to bring it up to the Shadowsword. ?Oh, and you'd have to change the FF on at least two of the other IG SHT to make sense.

What are you going to do? ?

You can reduce the points cost. ?Good luck getting that through...

You can change the Demolisher Cannon to a Battle Cannon like it was in SM/TL, but it won't make an appreciable affect on combat worthiness and I doubt anybody would support it.

You could make the Battle Cannon and the Demolisher Cannon rapid firing, but that probably won't fly either.

The only thing left is to change the markedly-bigger-than-the-Leman-Russ-cannon-yet-same-stats weapon in the turret.

Compare the stats I propose to those for the Shadowsword. ?I think they are very comparable. ?If somebody has a better idea I'll be happy to listen to it.




_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
The Baneblades BattleCannon has 1 point more strength than the Leman Russ Batte Cannon.
It HAS different stats. AP3+/AT3+ fits this well.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Apr. 30 2007,16:59)
QUOTE
9) The problem with the armament for the Sentinel is that there are two (or more?) different models out there, the old one with the Multi-laser and the new one with the Lascannon. ?The good news is that they are both equally powerful the way I see it. ?I suggest that the stats for the Sentinel show 3 (or more) different options:

Heavy Flamer, 15cm, AP4+, Ignore Cover
Lascannon, 45cm, AT5+
Multi-laser, 30cm, AP5+/AT6+

Other options could include:
Twin-linked Heavy Bolters: 30cm ? AP4+
Plasma Cannon, 30cm, AP4+/AT4+, Slow Fire
2x Storm Bolters, 15cm, AP4+


Of the above, ?only the first three are valid weapon loads for a sentinel.

All of your bottom three suggestions are unrepresentative of a sentinel's armament options.

I know that the top three would be easily accepted, and that they have precedence in WH40K, hence the reason why they are listed first.

The bottom three... well, yeah, so what.  They are there more for illustrative purposes and if anybody wanted to get creative.  Ignore them just like I'm sure everybody else will.

Almost like I put a blank line between the two for a reason...  ???  ???  ???

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I can understand your reasoning, but if you are not going to upgrade the main cannon, then what do you propose?


AT3+ / AP3+



I know that the top three would be easily accepted, and that they have precedence in WH40K, hence the reason why they are listed first.

Well then, here are some other Sentinel weapons that are found in armylists:

- Multimelta 15cm MW5+ (FF MW 5+)
- Indirect Missile Launcher (AP5+/AT6+) 25cm Indirect
- Multiple Rocket Pod (AP4+) 30cm.
- Heavy Bolter (AP5+) 30cm.

All of the above are 'official' from 40k, and none of them should go on the Sentinel.

If any change is wanted, it should be WYSIWYG, thus: A Lascannon.


JMHO. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
One problem with different armaments for Sentinels:
If you go this way and the shoosing of weapons for sentinels is accepted as official then you can give SpaceMarines and Imperial Guardsmen Lascannon, HeavyBolters, Multi-meltas, PlasmaCannons, Mortars and MissileLaunchers, etc to shoose as their HeavyWeapon too.

This would go against the designconcept to fit each unit with its prefered weapon as general statline.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(BlackLegion @ Apr. 30 2007,22:43)
QUOTE
One problem with different armaments for Sentinels:
If you go this way and the shoosing of weapons for sentinels is accepted as official then you can give SpaceMarines and Imperial Guardsmen Lascannon, HeavyBolters, Multi-meltas, PlasmaCannons, Mortars and MissileLaunchers, etc to shoose as their HeavyWeapon too.

This would go against the designconcept to fit each unit with its prefered weapon as general statline.

Agreed.

And that's why the 'Armageddon Pattern' Sentinel should get the quintisential weapon of its Pattern... The Lascannon.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Yes....but the general weapon for the Sentinel is the Multi-laser. Thats the problem.

For Steellegion it would be the Lascannon.
For Cadians the Autocannon, for Catachans the HeavyFlamer and Multi-Melta for Elysians.

So we should resolve one question first:
Is the ImperialGuard armylist  form the rulebook a general ImperialGuard armylist or is it really a specific Armageddon Steellegion armylist?

Armylist wise its a general ImperialGuard armylist. Reasons:
- Steelegion uses Lascannons for their Sentinels
- Steellegion don't use RoughRiders
- Steellegion don't use Ogryns
- Steelegion don't use Fire Support Platoons

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The Steel Legion also *do* use Conscript formations, which are not represented at all in Epic.


In essence, the armylist in the rulebook represents more of an amalgamated IG armylist than the rulebook cares to admit!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Conscrips could be the Infantry Platoon upgrade. Statswise there wouldn't be such a big difference between them and regular guardsmen in epic.
A difference could make their Prefered Enemy: Orks ability.

And yes it's an almaganated list. Not a strikt Steelegion army.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
orangesm
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:50 pm
Posts: 482
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area, CA
I would say that the Steel Legion List is suppose to be a Mechanized Infantry Guard list.  I think it is a poor representation of something like the Cadian Garrison Force.

_________________
Airspace - AeroImp Forum
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
A friend of the german epic board has mad eupo the doctrine system for epic.

Scroll down to posting number 7 and exspecially number 14:
http://www.epic-battles.de/index.p....c&t=197

Would deserve a separate thread i guess? ;)




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(BlackLegion @ Apr. 30 2007,17:43)
QUOTE
One problem with different armaments for Sentinels:
If you go this way and the shoosing of weapons for sentinels is accepted as official then you can give SpaceMarines and Imperial Guardsmen Lascannon, HeavyBolters, Multi-meltas, PlasmaCannons, Mortars and MissileLaunchers, etc to shoose as their HeavyWeapon too.

This would go against the designconcept to fit each unit with its prefered weapon as general statline.

Yes and no.  There are two reasons why I suggested making the weapon on the Sentinel selectable.  One of the reasons why is because all of those weapons I mentioned are fairly equal to each other.  Aside from minor changes in tactics the Sentinels should all still be considered equal to each other regardless of weapon, and therefore all of equal points.  

The other reason why is because some people around here think that the only Sentinel miniature ever to be found is the metal one of recent manufacture.  They are forgetting about the plastic one that was available for years as part of the old Imperial Guard infantry sprue.  That Sentinel had a multi-laser on it.  While not necessary I thought it might be nice to allow players fielding those miniatures to do so in a WYSIWYG manner.  

The Heavy Flamer one?  Well, that one just struck my fancy as fun and as having precedence from WH40K.  I couldn't care if nobody accepts it or the other later ones I listed, as long as the lascannon and multi-laser weapons are accepted for WYSIWYG purposes.

<<< --- >>>

Swapping out weapons on infantry?  Well, I'd say that depends upon the weapon.  Realistically you could swap out missile launcher for autocannons because they are effectively the same weapon (45cm, AP5+/AT6+) except for the name.  Of course that doesn't really work background wise for the Space Marines.

I've seen on the Salamanders list the changing of missile launchers out for multi-meltas.  While the multi-meltas are more powerful than the missile launcher I think that this is adequately made up for by the shortage on fast attack units for the army.

Otherwise if you wanted to swap weapons, or allow the player to pick one from a list, I'd make sure that what you are allowing / swapping are equal.  Take, for instance, the Imperial Guard Support Squad with 2x Autocannons.  I would have no problem if you wanted to swap the 2x Autocannons (45cm, AP5+/AT6+) with:

3x Lascannon (45cm, AT5+) or
3x Plasma Cannon (30cm, AP4+/AT4+, Slow Fire) or
3x Heavy Flamers (15cm, AP4+, Ignore Cover) or
3x Multi-laser (30cm, AP5+/AT6+) or
1x Multi-melta (15cm, MW5+, FF = MW) and one of the above weapons, or
3x Heavy Bolters (30cm, AP5+) and one of the above weapons, or
1x Lascannon, 1x Plasma Cannon, and 1x Heavy Flamer, or...

If you really wanted to get silly I'd even let you replace the 2x Autocannons with: 6x Storm Bolters (15cm, AP4+)

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
I can understand your reasoning, but if you are not going to upgrade the main cannon, then what do you propose?



AT3+ / AP3+

Is that all you would do to the Baneblade to make it equal to the Shadowsword?

OK, now put your version of the Baneblade battlecannon (75cm, AP3+/AT3+) on the Baneblade and compare those stats to the Shadowsword.  Would you now consider both tanks to be equal?  I wouldn't.

I know that the top three would be easily accepted, and that they have precedence in WH40K, hence the reason why they are listed first.


Well then, here are some other Sentinel weapons that are found in armylists:

- Multimelta 15cm MW5+ (FF MW 5+)
- Indirect Missile Launcher (AP5+/AT6+) 25cm Indirect
- Multiple Rocket Pod (AP4+) 30cm.
- Heavy Bolter (AP5+) 30cm.

All of the above are 'official' from 40k, and none of them should go on the Sentinel.

Your Multiple Rocket Pod I would allow because its stats make it equal in firepower to a Lascannon.  The other three weapons should not be allowed without a points change because they are not equal in firepower to a Lascannon.

If any change is wanted, it should be WYSIWYG, thus: A Lascannon.

First off, you are forgetting the plastic Sentinel from the original infantry sprue.  It has a multi-laser mounted on it.  

Secondly, you are denying people who might want to modify their miniature to reflect a heavy flamer or another weapon.  I'll grant you, though, that WYSIWYG should be encouraged, and the heavy flamer version (Sentinel, Catachan Pattern) should be put in the Collectors Section.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
You guys might want to request Francois weigh in on some of these ideas or send him a note once you reach a consensus.  He's still the IG champion.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
The original Sentinel hasn't a Multi-laser it has an AssaultCannon! A weapon which isn't available for the IG since 3red Edition Wh40k.

If you want to use all the weapons you listed above, Blarg, then you can do so...in friendly games.

Other armylists like the Salamanders use different main-weapons because of fluff reasons. The Salamanders are known tofieldhuge amounts of flamer and melta weaponsry sothis is reflected by the armylist that some units have Multi-melta stats instead of the more common (amalgamated weapon) MissileLauncher.

re Baneblade: You can't compare the Baneblades BattleCannon to the Shadowswords VolcanoCannon. Because the Baneblade has a lot more secondary weapons than the Shadowsword.
If you compare then compare the two tanks as a whole.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net