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

Imperial Guard review
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(Blarg D Impaler @ May 01 2007,15:45)
QUOTE
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.
Did you read the rest of the thread dude?

Or even the 'changing the baneblade' thread?


AP3+ / AT3+ Baneblade Battlecannon
Demolisher Cannon
3x Twin Heavy Bolters
2x Lascannons




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.


I have nothing against different points costs for different weapon options.

It won't happen though, because of Epic's design ethos.

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.

Collector's section for the other weapon options would be fine, or even modular options in the core rules... but the main weapon on the Sentinel should be WYSIWYG IMHO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:36 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9525
Location: Worcester, MA

(Evil and Chaos @ May 01 2007,11:06)
QUOTE
Collector's section for the other weapon options would be fine, or even modular options in the core rules... but the main weapon on the Sentinel should be WYSIWYG IMHO.

I agree that the models should be WYSIWYG and have the stats reflect it.  I also agree that opening the Sentinel up to every weapons option would be like opening the flood gates for all the weapons options for guard, marine and etc squads.

However, I don't see why allowing for a few different weapon options ala the marines' Land Speeder would hurt.

Maybe two Sentinel weapon options per list would be best?

Steel Legion: Multi-laser, Lascannon
Elysian: Multi-melta, Heavy Bolter,
Catachan: Heavy Flamer, Multi-laser
Cadian: Autocannon, Lascannon

Thoughts?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:44 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
Would be the same as the Dreadnought stats. AssaultCannon & PowerFist OR TwinLascannon & MissileLauncher.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Neal - funnily enough I think these could indeed be francois list of changes posted on the old epic board :)

For info -
plastic sentinel - assault cannon
3rd ed metal - multilaser
4th ed - enclosed, lascannon

Baneblade wise could all discussion be kept on the baneblade thread?
Baneblade Thread

Indeed if anyone feels mod like they could move the relevant posts.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:30 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
Wh40k or epic editions? The E40k era metal Sentinel has an AssaultCannon.

_________________
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 7:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
If you want to use all the weapons you listed above, Blarg, then you can do so...in friendly games.


No, I'm not going to use all of those weapons. ?The only thing I'm doing is stirring the pot and trying to get you guys to think. ?It looks like Dave is the first person to catch on and realise the potential of doing different pattern Sentinels just like there are different pattern Leman Russ.

You're probably thinking: "Gee Blarg, why be an ass about things? ?Why not just state your idea about different pattern Sentinels?"

Because you guys wouldn't have listened to me. ?It would have been ignored, dismissed, repudiated, or all of the above. ?That and I am trying to get you guys to "think outside of the box."

Heck, I'm trying to get some people to just think.  I see a lot of "Yeah, that looks good" posts and not much critical thinking.  When I post some "Spicy, flavorful" posts, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm trying to rile up people into some menaningful discussion.  From where I am from we call it "stirring the pot."

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

Yes, yes, I know this! ?I know the reason why it was done. ?I was talking how it was done and about the game balance aspects of replacing the missile launchers with multi-meltas.

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.

Yes, I know this, too. ?I'm way ahead of you on this.

The Shadowsword is pretty much the same as the Baneblade except the weapons and the FF rating.

The differences in FF rating do not translate into that great of a difference in firepower. ?Call it equal to a lascannon in firepower.

Now, look at the weapons on the Shadowsword. ?The Volcano Cannon is a monster of a weapon; long range, great to-hit, and a TK(D3) also. ?Oh yeah, the Shadowsword has a couple of heavy bolters also...

Take a look at the weapons on the Baneblade. ?Compare the battle cannon to the volcano cannon. ?What are their respective to-hit numbers? ?What are their respective ranges? ?Does the battlecannon do TK damage? ?Is it even a MW? ?Go ahead, look them up. ?I'll wait...

(Elevator music playing.)

Your back. ?Great! ?See what I mean? ?Now, compare the battlecannon with the demolisher cannon. ?See how the demolisher cannon trades off range to get a better to-hit and ignore cover? ?They're pretty close weapons, aren't they? ?Would you say that both of those weapons put together equal a volcano cannon? ?You shouldn't.

OK, I know you have been wanting to do this. ?Go ahead and throw in all of the support weapons into the mix. [fake excitement] Wow! ?That sure is a long list of weapons! [/fake excitement] ?Now compare all of the weapons to the Volcano Cannon. ?Do any of them reach 90cm? ?No, but the Battlecannon reachs 75cm. ?What about to-hit numbers? ?The short ranged demolisher cannon can hit INF on a 3+, otherwise everything is a 4+ or a 5+. ?Compare that to the volcano cannon's ability to hit anything on the ground with a 2+ to-hit. ?Are any of the weapons on the Baneblade a MW? ?No. ?Not only is the volcano cannon a MW, it is a TK(D3) weapon. ?Have you figured out yet that the Baneblade needs some serious up-gunning?




_________________
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 8:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Evil and Chaos @ May 01 2007,11:06)
QUOTE

(Blarg D Impaler @ May 01 2007,15:45)
QUOTE
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.

Did you read the rest of the thread dude?

Or even the 'changing the baneblade' thread?


AP3+ / AT3+ Baneblade Battlecannon
Demolisher Cannon
3x Twin Heavy Bolters
2x Lascannons
Yeah, dude, I did read the rest of this thread and the other one.  Just because I am pressing you on a subject does not mean I am illiterate, it means that I believe you and I are smart enough such that some aspects of the discussion are assumed and not needing repeating.

Dude, did you read all of my thread about changing the Baneblade?  The one with all of the different things that could be done to improve the tank, yet can't for one reason or another?  

I'll summarize it for you: You can't change or improve anything on the Baneblade except for the cannon in the turret because it will contradict background, contradict WH40K, contradict the "Epic design ethos," or because nobody would be willing to support it.

I see your complete set of weapons for the Baneblade.  While it is a step in the right direction I contend that it does not go far enough to make it equal to the Shadowsword.

Please, prove me wrong.  I'm begging you, prove me wrong.  Come up with a set of upgrades that will make the Baneblade as good as the Shadowsword that everybody will accept.

_________________
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  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Come on, there a dedicated baneblade thread where all of this makes a lot more sense.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
No, I'm not going to use all of those weapons.  The only thing I'm doing is stirring the pot and trying to get you guys to think.  It looks like Dave is the first person to catch on and realise the potential of doing different pattern Sentinels just like there are different pattern Leman Russ.

You're probably thinking: "Gee Blarg, why be an ass about things?  Why not just state your idea about different pattern Sentinels?"

Because you guys wouldn't have listened to me.  It would have been ignored, dismissed, repudiated, or all of the above.  That and I am trying to get you guys to "think outside of the box."


I already posted above, I'm quite happy to have different weapon options on Sentinels... I'm probably more in favour of optional weapons choices than anyone else on this board!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Sentinels are really a minor point in an IG army list. maybe we should focus on more used weapon systems to get fixed. Sentinels are working quite good as expendable, and in first place cheap scout and screening units. Their 4 shots have minor or no influence on the game and this will not chance with other weapon loadouts as long as formation size is close to "auto break after one hit".

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:37 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9525
Location: Worcester, MA
It might be better to break these issues up into separate threads as well, maybe with some polls too so we can actually get an idea of where people stand?

Chris, you took the initiative to start this thread, do you want to start the others?  Do you want help?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I think if people fell strongely about one item they shuld break off into a different thread and leave this for broad concencus/quibbles. Veryhappy for those that care about an aissue to bring it up elsewhere and I'll amend the first post to show a link.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Imperial Guard review
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I'd consider the Leman Russ Companies.

It makes ZERO sense that the upgrade to having a Vanquisher costs nothing.

How about make a Vanquisher cost 25pts extra, and drop the base cost of the formation by 25pts... or something.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 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 4 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:  


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