Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=19393		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  frogbear [ Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Ok. Where are these troops for the orks

With all the micro management going on with Land Raiders (we must have 8 different versions), when are the Orks going to see some lovin'?

- Burna Boys could be INF representations of skorchas and maybe they do not have grots with them to help with their costing
- Tank Bustas could have a 15cm AT shot (bomb Squigs) and their 1 attack CC (or even FF) act as a MW.

Please do not state that they are represented by the boyz, because every other lists' units would show that there is precedence to have these guys exist.

Thoughts?
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
If you're going to do that, why stop there? We could have mega-armor nobz, too. We could have lungburstas and gobsmashas and spleenrippas and gutrippas and speedstas and dragstas.

Over the years a lot of fine detail has been added to the game without much improvement. In the end we don't need nearly the number of variants that have been introduced. They don't add anything to the game because the net effect ends up being the same. It's overkill and only helps the "on paper" feel, not the actual in-game experience.

If you want Burnas and Tankbustas, develop an argument that they will improve play.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Certain variant lists might benefit from having them. Not sure what they are though. :-)
Author:  lord-bruno [ Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
I would rather see some ork shoota/lotta boyz stats, I have actual models from 3rd edition.
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
nealhunt wrote:
Over the years a lot of fine detail has been added to the game without much improvement. In the end we don't need nearly the number of variants that have been introduced. They don't add anything to the game because the net effect ends up being the same. It's overkill and only helps the "on paper" feel, not the actual in-game experience.
If you want Burnas and Tankbustas, develop an argument that they will improve play.


So this really springs from all the investment that takes place with other lists.

Examples:
- There is currently discussions on various types of Land Raiders. Why? Redeemer vs Crusader - what is the point?
- Dreadnoughts - Siege vs Ironclad - what is the point?
- There are other micro detail discussions going on for Tau and probably the Imp Guard.

If we were serious on representation rather than micro, we would state you can have 1 option each for FF, Shooting, Transport, and maybe one more. As it is, all I see is Epic striving to become Apocalypse. So it is an all or nothing IMO. We either go full micro detail and allow the marines and other lists to have all their wonderful toys - many of which add nothing bar things such as Ignore Cover to a shot, or we go the other way and say they are represented in other units already existant.

There just appears to be one rule for Marines and Imp Guard, and another rule for Orks. I just do not understand it.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Well, at least in the case of Land Raiders, they're conversions of existing vehicles that were produced in quantities so numerous the trick is NOT ending up with some. They could make 200 LR variants and not make a dent in some collections.
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Yes however not all the Land Raiders offer a sufficient difference to be represented on an Epic table - yet they exist.

It would be good to gain consistency. If we are doing the micro, then orks can have their toys too.
Author:  Simulated Knave [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Part of the problem is that Ork units are sufficienty varied that proxying is even more justifiable than it is for the Space Marines. The Orks don't have standardized weapons and equipment in the same way.

That said, hammer up some stats for them and maybe a list to use them. The worst case scenario is no one will.

Oh, and if you give the Burna Boyz MW in CC I will weep. Just FYI. ;)
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Simulated Knave wrote:
Oh, and if you give the Burna Boyz MW in CC I will weep. Just FYI. ;)


No, just a better FF and Ignore Cover. They like to see their opponents do the 'burny dance'!
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
frogbear wrote:
So this really springs from all the investment that takes place with other lists.

Yes, it does.

Quote:
Examples:
- There is currently discussions on various types of Land Raiders. Why? Redeemer vs Crusader - what is the point?

These actually have different battlefield roles. Close support versus mass transport. A few variants for reasonably distinct roles is okay.

However, when you start asking things like "why Achilles and Redeemer" when they are both close support... I agree. I don't think the plethora of variants are needed.

Quote:
- Dreadnoughts - Siege vs Ironclad - what is the point?

None. In fact, most of the dread options are overkill. They need 2 options - firepower and assault. Past that it should be a very iconic item before it is included. Something like the Furiosos might be justified, for instance.

Same for Preds. The variants aren't really needed.

Quote:
- There are other micro detail discussions going on for Tau and probably the Imp Guard.

The Tau discussions, last time I checked, were about differentiating battlefield roles for the different infantry. That's specifically with the goal of affecting game play.

I'm unaware of any IG discussions. However, I did argue that the Minervan list and Krieg each needed far less variety of AVs, even though they were a major feature. The Chimera variants on the Minervans were a touchy point and the NetERC really pushed back on them when it came down to making the list official. The NetEA "official" Krieg list uses the stock Shadowsword stats, even though E&C included variant stats in Siege.

Quote:
There just appears to be one rule for Marines and Imp Guard, and another rule for Orks. I just do not understand it.

Nah. See above.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Quote:
The NetEA "official" Krieg list uses the stock Shadowsword stats, even though E&C included variant stats in Siege.

There's even a note to that effect in the online version of Epic: Siege.
Author:  zombocom [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Orks ARE different in this respect, and with good reason.

All ork weapons at ALL scales are abstractions. Every ork weapon is supposed to be unique, so obviously a level of abstration is neccesary to represent them sanely in a wargame. 40k uses one level of abstraction, and epic just does the same thing at a higher level.

Unlike other armies where the varients represent different mass produced patterns, for orks it's all just catagories. You can argue about where the lines should be drawn, but it'll always be an abstraction.
Author:  mnb [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
ditto, explained very well. although i think the fore mentioned mega-armor nob (or any nob variant) could be kinda cool since there is a lack of characters in this army
Author:  frogbear [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
A INF unit that offers a better FF (burna boyz) would possibly offer a different army style of play. If they fell in-between other price points of boyz and nobz, they may just change the force structures of things such as formations in Landas etc.

I think they at least should be a consideration for inclusion as they will make a difference.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Burna Boys and Tank Bustas
Quote:
I think they at least should be a consideration for inclusion as they will make a difference.

Not in the Armageddon list, it's finished.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/