| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
(Lord Inquisitor @ Dec. 16 2006,20:25)
QUOTE Right! You ready for this? Remember this is intended to be constructive!
Let's rock!
The Special Rules:
SPECIAL RULE
Fatalistic
The Death Korps seek out glory in death,
and will stand in the face of almost any
opposition.
Glory in death? That's not very fatalistic, is it? 
Aye, not glory, redemption. Oops. 
Any Infantry Company attempting to
rally that includes an Officer will receive
+1 to its rally roll.
Don't bother with this. Death Korps leaders aren't THAT much better than normal IG leaders in 40K. This is a very powerful ability - essentially making them Initiative 1+ for rallying. They're fatalistic, but not necessarily as well-disciplined as Space Marines.
Iron Discipline (The 40k special rule that inspired this section of the rules) really does make Guard as good at rallying as Marines.
It lets them rally when they're below 50% of starting numbers, and lets them ignore the -1 leadership modifier for being so.
Properly supported by an IG officer with a Commissar next to him, this leaves bog standard Death Korps squads rallying on a 10 or less on 2D6.
That's the best possible value in the game incidentally (All stats are capped at 10) which Marines actually have to pay significantly more points to aquire.
Enemy formations may never claim the
+1 combat resolution bonus for
outnumbering a Death Korps Infantry
formation. They may claim +1 for outnumbering
by more than twice however.
Cut this too OR substitute it for the invulnerable save. Not both. I would recommend the save, as it is more like a form of Fearless - not getting the +1 for outnumbering lets them WIN combats. That doesn't feel right.
Hmmm just had an idea.
Death Korps Infantry formations only
become broken when their number of
blast markers exceeds the number of
units.
Hey, I like this bit!
Wait for it.
In addition, any broken Death Korps
Infantry unit that suffers hits from excess
Blast Markers (Or becomes an excess
casualty after an Engagement) receives
an Invulnerable Save against that hit.
Also fine. However, I might say "6+ save" not "Invulnerable save," to avoid possible confusion. Hmm. Do you get to use an Invulnerable save against hackdown hits or hits from BM when broken? I thought you couldn't, but looking at the rules I'm not sure if that's right... I ought to know this...
How about instead of messing around with saves etc, just say something on the order of:
"DK Infantry units which would suffer casualties from excess blast markers, or losing an engagement, will suffer one less casualty than they normally would."
This would allow a broken formation that was shot at, and not hit, to suffer no crumbling at all, for example.
Weak Rear Armour: I STILL think this is fiddly. I don't really think you NEED this rule at all, it promotes mucking around with exact facings. If it is absolutely vital, I still think a crossfire rule would be better. Either way it could be in the vehicle's datafax - it looks like this applies to every unit in the army if you put it as a special rule!
Lance doesn't apply to every unit in the Eldar army.
Synapse doesn't apply to every unit in the Tyranid army.
I feel it's just too wordy to bog down the datafax with.
A line implying this rule only applies to Gorgons may be appropriate.
The Army List.
Leman Russ Variants. This is one extra part of the army list you don?t need. Even if you keep all the variants they can be subsumed into the Upgrades part of the list.
Destroyers as Upgrades instead of part of the initial 6?
To be honest, I?d just drop the Thunderer (put it in the appendix models section ? why?d you want one of these rather than a Demolisher anyway?).
First because they're (currently) 15 points cheaper, and second because they're very, very fluffy.
make the basic company 6 leman russ and allow the option to add 2 demolishers, vanquishers or destroyers. Maybe 6 leman russ OR demolishers if you want to keep the siege theme. Any way you can simplify the army list is worthwhile.
The 6-tank formation is a Support Formation so it can't take Upgrades from the Upgrades section.
It'd need either to be a Company formation or need seperate dispensation.
Frankly I think 5 individually pointed tanks is just as complex, but more intuitive.
Break the ?self-propelled? upgrade into three separate upgrades. No point in keeping them lumped ? it?s confusing.
I just saw them as all being part of the same section of the army (logistically speaking) so it made sense to put them together.
If it's too confusing...
I think it might be better to make the upgrades (centaurs, Trojans, etc) into the upgrades part of the list. Perhaps split the list like Space Marines so each formation has a list of possible upgrades?
That would make the list quite a bit more complex imho, rather than making it simpler. Several of the Upgrades also cost differing ammounts depending on the formation they're applied to too (Trojans spring to mind).
I don't think it's practical for this list.
Also, it would be the first Guard list to break the Steel Legion format?
The Units
Twin-heavy stubbers. I may be displaying my ignorance, but can Death Korps troops take heavy stubbers, let alone twin-heavy stubbers? I think you might want to change this to just one ?heavy stubber.? They?re still getting twice as many shots as normal IG.
Death Korps Infantry Squads can take Twin Heavy Stubbers. It's their iconic weapon (Since no other 40k IG army is allowed them).
The 1 shot per 2 bases note appears in my copy of the list?
Should grenadiers have scouts? Perhaps lose that to differentiate them from Stormtroopers (they don?t have infiltrate or deepstrike in 40K).
Scouts are annoying, Grenadiers should be annoying, Grenadeirs should have Scout.
Okay maybe it should come out then.
Laser Destroyer. Personally, I think AT3+ or AT4+ and sniper would make them quite unique enough. Simple and concise!
Fair enough, AT3+, Sniper and about 80 points could be balanced.
The only problem is... the Laser Destroyer is a Macro-Weapon class weapon.
It's described as quite capable of piercing titan armour.
It is Strength 10, AP2, and rolls 2D6 to penetrate enemy tank armour.
Basically it's the ultimate anti-tank weapon in 40k.
I think it needs MW.
How about MW5+ Sniper?
Centaur. Drop the ?grenadiers heavy stubber? ? that?s unnecessary complexity. Either give them one or two twin heavy stubbers.
It's part of their rules in 40k, and makes them semi-useful as backup to Grenadiers.
I'll consider it, as it is a little fiddly.
Also, remove the bit about Batteries not being able to fire when deployed ? unnecessary complexity again, and remember one turn in epic is plenty of time to deploy and ready a support weapon.
No.
Batteries moving faster than self-propelled guns and firing in the same turn would be far too powerful.
Either you fire, or you move fast. You don't do both.
Trojan. Again, lose the text about not being able to fire when deployed, not necessary. Being immobile is plenty enough of a disadvantage in Epic!
No.
Stormsword/Stormblade/Shadowsword/Baneblade. I think there are too many of these for the list ? especially since you only allow them in formations of 1! I think you should tighten your belt ? the Baneblade and the Stormblade both fit your ?siege mentality?. I would drop the shadowsword and the stormsword ? this will give your list rather more focus AND give a nice gap in your list? MW/TK weapons! Every good list should have a weakness.
I'm considering it.
You might allow formations of 3 baneblades and stormblades in the main list, though.
If this is now an Infantry Regiment list, that is out of the question (Not compatible with the background).
I would be inclined to stick with the rulebook stats for baneblades for the time being ? at least until the IG rules review. Just confusing otherwise.
Maybe.
Right that?s it. Hope it helps!
Aye a few nudges here and there!
|
|
