Excellent. I fully support this!
I was wondering how you would translate the Gara across to Epic.... interesting solution!
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Kraytonian List http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=14586 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | thedespot29 [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
I'm a big fan of the Seeds of War rules, but I know they are still playing with some of the points values and balance and what not, so instead of porting over Epic armies to SoW, I gave a shot at making my own Kraytonian list for Epic. I have no idea how balanced this is, I just kind of eyeballed it, and I haven't finished with all the points or special rules.  I have never really played EA, I've just read the rules, so I wanted to get the opinion of those who play regularly and maybe get the ball rolling on getting other Dark Realm or Steel Crown lists together. |
|
| Author: | Carrington [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Cool! Thanks for the effort. Nothing like having figures looking for a list rather than the now customary situation.. Looking forward to playing with it... If I'm not using my Krayts as proxies. It does need a strategy rating... And perhaps some thought about where these fellows fit in the scheme of things -- it's looking kind of like OrkMarines at the moment... (orcatau?). Not least, Krayts may be the hardest to convert because they have the smallest formations of anything but Eldar and SMs -- it looks like a lot of small formations! My impression is that one of the challenges in converting SOW lists over to E:A is that SOW lists are less "lumpy," partially because of the d10 combat system. One result is that toasters, lizards, and humies end up 'feeling' somewhat generic in the SOW. I wonder if maybe the better bet would be to start working up SOW lists for E:A armies... (FWIW, I get the sense that porting E:A to SOW actually makes more sense than the reverse, because SOW seems a cleaned-up version of E:A...) |
|
| Author: | Mark_Logue [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Nice to see someone getting the ball roling. I have painted up some Kraytonins but I haven't gotten around to gaming with them at all yet so it will be nice to see how this progresses. |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Excellent. I fully support this! I was wondering how you would translate the Gara across to Epic.... interesting solution!
|
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Looks Good !!  
|
|
| Author: | Carrington [ Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Quote: Quote: (Hena @ 16 Jan. 2009, 06:54 ) Few things only. I don't have time now to comment point / unit stat balance here. 1. Don't use 50cm range. 2. The Blood Lust special is probably too good and affects game play too much. Normally you'd have to balance the unit putting by trying to shoot with it vs getting killed. This just means that you put your heavy hitters in front so that they don't die first and avoid suppression in one go. 3. Why Lance on Kamelei swords? 4. Rakkat riders. You have 2MW attacks on first strike. I think that's too good. 5. Brood Boss and Basileus should be Character not Infantry. 6. Ketzali. These have Inspiring, that should mean that there is about max 1 or 2 per formation of these. I didn't see them in list itself, so don't know how they would be used. Edit: Can you add some background on what the list is trying to be? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? How it should play (fast, slow, durable, powerful at close range or something)? Great questions, Hena. I guess many of the issues you bring up stem from this list being derived (in part) from a set of miniatures, rather than the reverse. DRM's 'fluff' is thinner... though I think one element of the basic fluff is that it is ...somewhat... 'harder' (or at least 'non-spikey) sci-fi than the WH40k universe (and it's an interesting issue how the fluffs could be merged). I think the idea behind Kraytonians is that they're a civilized, honor-bound, warrior society -- somewhere between Klingons and Kzinti. Between their green skin and their predilection for close combat, they might be mistaken for Orks... but they are also self-consciously tech leaders in certain areas. Basically their distinguishing features are: Blood lust/casualty tolerance... of some sort, Weak(er) infantry at range, Fast, skimmer-based light vehicles. 'Hot' air units bleeding edge teleport tech, coupled with a bunch of 'loonies' willing to take the risk... I appreciate Td29's effort to bang out the list -- the basis, of course, is the relatively simple lists provided with SOW. I have no idea how he guesstimated the unit ratings, etc., but I think he was right to stick with the (arbitrary) SOW list, mainly to allow a degree of interoperability. At this point, I think SOW has set up their spectrum of army lists ranging from 'shooty,' armor-heavy humans, to mid-range 'toasters' (androids), to lizards with a preference for tooth and claw, to bugs with only tooth and claw. Just in terms of basic formation sizes, however, the humans aren't quite IG -- if one could be forgiven for suspecting IG was modeled on WWII Soviets, then the Arcadians might resemble a more 'Western' army in training and doctrine. The problem, of course, in making an ideal port of all of these armies is distinguishing them from already extant E:A archetypes. But a quick, dirty, but successful port is one that allows owners of DRM armies to put a balanced force on an E:A table as well... without necessitating rebasing and reorganizing. |
|
| Author: | thedespot29 [ Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Carrington, you are absolutely right, I ended up just translating units over as close as possible, rather than thinking about it as an overall list.  One difficulty with porting these lists over will definitely be the formation sizes, as they seem to be universally smaller in SOW than in Epic A. As for unit stats, I looked at all the other lists that are approved and tried to get an idea for what would be too over the top and where a baseline was.  Then I just kind of put the stats together to see what felt right according to the SoW stats. Hena, I’m pretty sure there is overlap between units and some units that would definitely not be taken over another, I just wanted to try to provide stats for everything.  I had particular trouble with the Kurall and Kijak. I have no problem increasing all firefight values by 1 to make them much more of a CC oriented list punctuated by shooty tank and air units if it will help give the list more of an identity. Hena, you are right, I will remove first strike from Rakkat, 1 reg attack and 1 MW attack is plenty. Remove the bloodlust special rule and think of something else that isn’t so unbalancing, maybe something with increasing follow-up moves after assault to simulate them wanting to get into combat?  Any ideas would be appreciated. Add ketzali as upgrade to monitor broods as 0-2, still unsure on points. Kamelei have lance because they are armed with charges that are used for tankbusting, so I figured I would represent that, but maybe it’s too much? Maybe I should leave it off and let them rest with just a higher CC value? I will reduce any ranges that are 50cm to 45cm As for the Garas…I’m not really sure how to represent the buggers just yet, I’ll have to think about it. |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Thank you for 'translating' the data! Great job! Nice start for working out a characterful EA list for them. |
|
| Author: | frogbear [ Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Oooh! I am going to be naughty and call it a slaan list. hehehe |
|
| Author: | Thepotentate29 [ Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Awesome job on the translantion. Definitely let the Kamelei rest with just a higher CC value, anything else probably would be a bit over the top. Carrington is right about making the ideal port and distinguishing from already present E:A archetypes, but you did a sweet job on your first go around. I keep waiting for a game rule set where you dont have to have a stereotypical archetype to every race ie. fast attack, slow and powerful, durable, etc, but instead allow for more customization so that when you are fielding them, your opponent doesnt know exactly what to expect. This could lead to stale, all races the same type game, but maybe it could lead to more exciting play as you move in on what you think is a light gun infantry unit, to find out they have heavy armor on and are melee specc'd. |
|
| Author: | Recidivist [ Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Hey, I've had a go at converting the Krayt across to EA myself, before realising you'd already done so. Cant seem to get your pdf to open though, do you have another link please? I'd like to see how our efforts compare. Cheers |
|
| Author: | Erik M [ Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Quote: (Hena @ Jan. 20 2009, 19:53 ) It would be better not to try to make a copy of SOW list. But try to look what the SOW list is trying to achieve and then do the same with Epic (and trying to keep similar to SOW list). It's much better to do that than just a direct conversion. This also applies to stats as well. I'm actually quite happy with how the army lists (ie die rolling and "skills") work in EA. But I'd love the rules to be the SoW ones. And to that end I have the files under the magnifying glass. Just need to find the time and someone crazy enough to spend the time to test it out. |
|
| Author: | Tri3 [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Kraytonian List |
Hey that PDF doesn't download any more. Any chance on getting another link up? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|