Crisis unit survivability |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability  Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
NH,
I appreciate, but fully disagree with your argument.
By your argument: All multi-wound models in 40K are more suseptable to a single Epic equivilent AT wound when compared to an 40K infantry mob that only has 1 wound each. Fine... then *Any and ALL* multi-wound 40K infantry should be LV in epic by your argument...
So in epic, I should see you championing light vehicle(LV) status for 2-wound 40K equivilents - as a single AT shot is more effective against them right...
That would include Ogryns, and Obliterators, Tzeentch Tsons Marines, and Ruberic terminators for starters... by your argument that is.... 
Now, if you don't think that Ogryns, Obliterators, Tsons, and Ruberics ought to be Light Vehicles but crisis should - we have an impartiality issue on our hands as crisis can move faster, have smaller formations, and can have a 4+ invulnerable save where only some of these other units have an invulnerable save, and the ones that do only have a 5+
Your argument says crisis are more valuable than an assault marine squad in 40K due to their evasion and firepower and micro scale at play, but in epic they can't hide as well and thus are more suseptable to firepower. I'm having trouble with this argument. I don't understand the logic. Less models are easier to hide and become more obscure to AT fire as the scale of the battle is increassed. They wouldn't become more suseptable to AT fire at longer ranges as they'd be harder to pick out from massed infantry and tank targets. Their smaller squads would become harder to track at the epic scale. If anything, its an argument FOR crisis being only AP targets!
As far as balance goes - I don't know how you can make this statement. We've not even playtested them as infantry under the current set of rules. The only playtest reference we have of crisis as infantry is from quite a long time ago when they were working under a completely different set of rules and points. Same for broadsides.
So at this point, I'd say the case is stronger than ever for them to be infantry and NOT Light Vehicles.
I'll be very interested in your response.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:08 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
You misunderstood my reasoning.
Vulnerability to AT is based largely on squad size and toughness. Wounds are a secondary effect unless the toughness of the model is high enough to negate insta-kill from high ST weapons.
Crisis suits have a small squad size and vulnerability to high ST weapons. That means AT fire should be effective against them in Epic.
As to the other units you used as examples, they all have stats represented by _5_ models. While they will still be insta-killed by a lascannon, loss of a single trooper makes far less difference to them than loss of a crisis suit does to a squad of 3.
====
"balance" was a bad choice in terms. I should have said the LV was a good epic scale model for the effect of enemy fire on a squad of crisis suits.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Vulnerability to AT is based largely on squad size and toughness. Wounds are a secondary effect unless the toughness of the model is high enough to negate insta-kill from high ST weapons.
|
OK, but if my max size is 6 stands of crisis in a cadre or 4 stands of assault marines - both in epic, we both have a lot of wounds and we both are affected by ap and at shots in 40K, but only ap shots affect the infantry formation which is actually smaller in epic... We are not going to factor in shield generators for crisis, and we are not going to factor in their evasiveness of their jetpacks... furthermore, we are not going to factor in shield drones that they can take, and we are not going to factor in that smaller formations are actually harder to see on a large battlefield - not easier... thus getting a pin point AT shot to hit a small infantry formation should have LESS effect on the formation compared to a tank firing into a full company of marines... We are also not going to factor in that I can take drones on the tau and make the formation even larger yet... and still, all crisis and drones are affected by AT and AP... while marines are only affected by ap
This rule is just pure nonesense. The reality of it is that it was put in there to calm the unit down when the rules were different. It's no longer warranted, and there's not even a precident to keep them LV.
It's an unnecessary reduction in power making them easier to kill and limiting the terrain they can enter unnecessarily.
In my playtesting anyway, it's proving to be an unnecessary hinderance that is unjustified at this stage of the game.
As to the other units you used as examples, they all have stats represented by _5_ models. While they will still be insta-killed by a lascannon, loss of a single trooper makes far less difference to them than loss of a crisis suit does to a squad of 3.
|
I mentioned Obliterators? Are Obliterators based upon a squad size of 5? In 40K, A black legion list can only take one squad and have 1-3 obliterators in the unit.
In 40K, I take a squad of crisis 1-3 strong, and I can have multiple squads.
In Epic, I can't have a formation of obliterators running around due to their rarity.
In Epic, I can have a whole cadre of crisis suits running around.
How is an obliterator not a LV if a crisis is to be a LV... are they not MORE rare, less mobile, less evasive, and subject to a greater amount of impact from AT weapons?
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:02 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I think I'm not being clear. By "squad size" I meant the number of models that would be represented on a single stand, i.e. a single unit.
I was just trying to explain the standards for determining unit type and armor saves that were used during development. Those standards are based not on straight 40K stats, but on the number of troops an Epic unit supposedly represents and what it takes to render them "combat ineffective" with some, for lack of a better term, "slop factor" for issues not represented in 40K, like wounded but unkilled troops, etc..
By those standards, it only takes a couple high-ST hits to disable the majority of 3 Crisis suits, so a Crisis stand should be vulnerable to AT hits in Epic.
All the defenses you listed - maneuverability, shield drones, etc. - should be factored into the armor save. They don't really affect whether or not the unit is vulnerable to a successful AT hit, just whether or not it is successful to begin with.
====
Regarding the comments on my impartiality:
This is also the same reasoning I've used against all the people who want to make Attack Bikes mounted infantry instead of LVs. Attack Bikes shouldn't be Infantry because they have a clear vulnerability in 40K to high-ST weapons - AT in Epic. Removing their vulnerability to that is quite a departure from their relative ability in 40K.
As far as Obliterators, I don't know that the base line for the unit stats was ever specified but the default for infantry would be 5 for a unit. It is true that most people I've seen have converted them 3-to-a-stand. That is the minimum number for a legal infantry base, though, and I had assumed the number was due to everyone needing to convert them rather than 3 being the number that was supposed to be represented by the stats.
It's certainly a good question for PG. If it turns out that the stat line is supposed to represent 3 of them, I think they should be LVs to represent their vulnerability to AT fire for the same reasons as a Crisis Suit - low numbers and vulnerability to high-ST insta-kills.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
NH,
[in 40K]
Crisis in 40K have 3+ armor save, 2 wounds, tau jet packs that allow for evasion in and out of terrain or behind terrain even after they've fired, same toughness as marines, and can have shield generators and gun/shield drones for the entire unit.
Assault marines get 12" move but no evastion, are the same in armor save and toughness, but only have 1 wound and don't have invulnerable saves for the formation, nor do they have alblative hits like drones and shield drones to absorb their hits.
Broadsides have a 2+ armor save in 40K, 2 wounds, same toughness as marines, and can have 4+ shield generators and gun/shield drones for the entire unit.
Terminators in 40K have same toughness as broadsides, same armor save, can only have a 5+ invulnerable save, and only have 1 wound each.
In Epic Armageddon
Marines have a 4+ armor save and are infantry.
Crisis have a 3+ armor save. (the account for shield generators, gun drones, shield drones, and evasion and ability to move in/out/behind cover to avoid enemy's shots, and 2 wounds each - equates to +1 armor appearently)
Terminators have a 4+ Reinforced Armor Save + thick rear armor and infantry.
Broadsides have a 4+ RA (no thick rear).
Balancer
Now, in order to balance crisis and broadsides to marines - which they are already losing quite a bit in the conversion to epic - we say we need to further make the crisis and broadsides LV's so they are not only subject to ap fire, but so they are also subject to AT fire... because we don't put that many on a stand by comparison to marines?
Furthermore, we say that the additional defenses that crisis and broadsides have should be factored into their armor...
OK, would you say we've done a fair job of things with +1 armor save for epic crisis and lack of thick rear armor on broadsides by comparison to broadsides while making them both LV's?
As far as Obliterators, I don't know that the base line for the unit stats was ever specified but the default for infantry would be 5 for a unit. It is true that most people I've seen have converted them 3-to-a-stand. That is the minimum number for a legal infantry base, though, and I had assumed the number was due to everyone needing to convert them rather than 3 being the number that was supposed to be represented by the stats.
It's certainly a good question for PG. If it turns out that the stat line is supposed to represent 3 of them, I think they should be LVs to represent their vulnerability to AT fire for the same reasons as a Crisis Suit - low numbers and vulnerability to high-ST insta-kills.
|
I'm confused as to why Obliterators cannot be a direct comparison. I'm further confused as to why Ogryns are not a direct comparison. Both have less than 10 models in their unit sizes in 40K (OK, Ogryns I'm not quite sure on... but still)
The obliterators in particular would never number more than 3 to a unit in 40K. Regardless of what their stat line is in epic, in the end, they are more suseptable to AT fire than a crisis as a crisis can at least 'evade' the shot as you'll likely never even get an AT shot on a crisis.
Futhermore, crisis and broadsides commonly take shield generators for personal invulnerable saves and sheild/gundrones for ablative amor. That makes both units more protected than an obliterator ever could be from AT shots in epic.
I'm not saying I think an obliterator should be a light vehicle, but if an Obliterator is not a LV, then there's absolutely no reason why a crisis and broadside should be an LV.
Also, the claim here is that an AT shot is more damaging to the crisis and broadside compared to an infantry man because they have 2 wounds.
If that's the stance, then where is our bonus for AP shots? We can fend off ap shots much better than marines. Why would crisis even be subject to AP fire?
Something is way out of wack here in the crisis and broadside conversions to epic. If I'm the only one that sees/believes it - fine. I've made my case and said my piece. Something is most definitely not right.
I'm just asking for the chance for the masses to playtest this as infantry instead of LV. I know I can test it all I want, but that is hardly a full on playtest. My group hates diverging from the rules of present or those that are soon to be. So... the chances are me getting to playtest what I sincerely believe should be a no brainer (make them both infantry!) - is unlikely.
thanks for listening...
_________________
Rob
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:27 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
|
Thank you for that clear, concise explanation of your position. Now all I have to do is shoot some holes in it, to get you to agree with changing Crisis suits back to infantry! 
_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
xerxes
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:57 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:31 pm
Posts: 13
|
|
Just to interject again. Crisis in 40K are significantly more resilient than the equivalent number of wounds of Space Marines (incl. Drones). I often use 8+ suits in a 1500 point game and never take Inv saves, however I don?t believe in 2 years of gaming there have been more than a handful of occasions I have lost them to long range anti-infantry fire. They die more often from anti-tank fire, and also from assaults/infantry rapid fire (Epic equivalent of assaults). So I believe their profile should contain the following characteristics:
Better Save than a Marine stand
Can take advantage of cover more easily than a Dreadnought
Vulnerability to AT firepower
Resilience against AP firepower
I would like to see the following:
Against AP fire a 3+ save ? this is representative of their vulnerability in my opinion
Against AT fire no save (but can take Cover modifier bonuses)
No penalty for moving in cover ? this is how Jump Infantry work?
Poor assault/firefight ability in line with the Tau principles laid down by JG (Crisis can only retreat so far!)
What would best represent this I don?t know, but perhaps someone else can think of a profile that matches the strengths and weaknesses above?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (xerxes @ 09 2005 Aug.,10:57) | So I believe their profile should contain the following characteristics:
Better Save than a Marine stand
Can take advantage of cover more easily than a Dreadnought
Vulnerability to AT firepower
Resilience against AP firepower
I would like to see the following:
Against AP fire a 3+ save ? this is representative of their vulnerability in my opinion
Against AT fire no save (but can take Cover modifier bonuses)
No penalty for moving in cover ? this is how Jump Infantry work?
Poor assault/firefight ability in line with the Tau principles laid down by JG (Crisis can only retreat so far!)
What would best represent this I don?t know, but perhaps someone else can think of a profile that matches the strengths and weaknesses above? |
Hi, with your proposed changes regarding armor saves, you would bring in that much detail as in the first Titan Legion( Adeptus Titanicus) Game. I don?t know if you ever played it, but the early rules for Infantry and Tanks where nearly as detailed as in 40k. I don?t see the need of such an detailed abstraction, while changing the status to either Infantry or AV is more important. My preferred change would be to AV, like an Dreadnought. Reflecting more the fact that they are bulky suits, loaded with plenty of armor and weapons. Not the equipment for infantry I fear.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
OK, would you say we've done a fair job of things with +1 armor save for epic crisis and lack of thick rear armor on broadsides by comparison to broadsides while making them both LV's? |
I don't know the 40K abilities, but based on your description I would have to say no. It sounds as if some sort of RA would make sense, though obviously not 3+. 
There is a qualifier that should be considered, though. 40K upgrades are abstracted into the general stats for a unit. In other words even if "everyone" takes upgrade X in 40K armies, that does not mean that all the units in the race's forces have access to that upgrade. Stat lines are supposed to represent a mix of upgraded and non-upgraded units.
As an example, 40K Ork Nobz can have mega-armor but they don't have a 4+RA in Epic because only a portion of the Nobz actually have it. The save is "averaged" between Mega-armor and regular armor to 4+.
I noticed you said they "can have" shield generators and drones. If it's an upgrade then the stats in Epic should reflect a portion of the units having those upgrades, but not all of them.
There are no hard and fast guidelines on what portion you consider to have upgrades. That's part of the "slop factor" I mentioned above.
I'm confused as to why Obliterators cannot be a direct comparison. I'm further confused as to why Ogryns are not a direct comparison. Both have less than 10 models in their unit sizes in 40K (OK, Ogryns I'm not quite sure on... but still) |
The size of a 40K formation is irrelevant to the Epic stats.
The unit stats in Epic are dependent on what is represented by a single stand - ONLY.
The relation might be reflected in other ways. For example, a 40K squad of Ogryn is 10 Ogryn. At 5 models per Epic unit, that's 2 stands. The IG Ogryn upgrade in the Steel Legion list is therefore 2 stands.
However, that doesn't affect the Ogryn stat line. The stats are based on the fact that a single Epic unit of Ogryns is 5 Ogryns on one base. All their abilities - armor saves, target type, CC, FF, ranged fire - are based on the idea that it's 5 Ogryn performing those tasks.
