Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

thoughts on jetbikes
thurse
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Hi all! come back from vacation last week and finally had time post on all these subjects...

1)I don't see anything in the fluff that says that jetbikes can't fly as high as a space marine land speeder. These units have more in common than say a jetbike and an assult marine

2)Honestly guys, the skimmer rule was meant mainly for antigrav units. It makes their flavor above everything else

3)I understand your concern about sticking to w40k. I think Epic should only be impacted if the fluff for a unit is changed, or if their stats are completely rebuilt.

4) And last but not least : by over-analysing the background and 40k rules,  we can have endless arguments for jump packs or for skimmer. For a rule modification to happen, I think we need much more : can someone explain why jet bikes are overpowered because of skimmer?
I don't think skimmer is their main strength, compared to hit and run with 35cm move and, above all, 4+ save.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:14 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Mohawk:  CC values in Epic in most cases do take into account short range fire as the units close to hand-to-hand range.

Ilushia:  That said, CC value does also assume that the units actually make it into hand to hand combat.  Short range firepower alone does not translate into using CC regardless of range.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mohawk
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:04 am
Posts: 81

(nealhunt @ Aug. 22 2006,14:14)
QUOTE
Mohawk: ?CC values in Epic in most cases do take into account short range fire as the units close to hand-to-hand range.

Ilushia: ?That said, CC value does also assume that the units actually make it into hand to hand combat. ?Short range firepower alone does not translate into using CC regardless of range.

ok, NH, i stand corrected.
I might have been to harch but i wanted to state the fact that CC value is used IN hand to hand combat and only then. Firefight covers all the rest in an engagement.

To justify "jumpack" on jetbikes by stating that 12" is practically close combat range is false by my book. Close combat is base-to-base only, in wh40k as well as in epic, and I agree fully with your post.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
NH,

I understand. In the end, I think this can shake out either way. I respect the fact that this is the way jetbikes have been since space marine (when I first owned an Eldar army). However, if we always did things they way they used to be done, we'd still have a host of bad practices in place. Change can be a very good thing. In the end though, however this lands, I'll personally be OK with it.


Marconz, [edit: erroneously typed Mosc before]

You have an interpretation of my argument and assume to have invalidated it, that's fine. I've gained an appreciation for your opinion. I really don't think we are communicating intelligently anymore. I'm putting an end to this debate.

Thank you.


Mohawk,

I think others have answered your question, so not going to respond.


jfrazell,

Perhaps I should have clarified. Too many conversations.

1) pop-up attack from skimmer = shooting action from guns

2) forcing FF in combat = engagement ability

+ + +

I was talking about shooting in my response to you, not an engagement action. That is when a pop-up is conducted. Not in combat. So the BM I was referencing was for "coming under fire, place one BM".

Hope that helps.




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jfrazell
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:21 pm
Posts: 144

(Tactica @ Aug. 22 2006,16:01)
QUOTE
jfrazell,

Perhaps I should have clarified. Too many conversations.

1) pop-up attack from skimmer = shooting action from guns

2) forcing FF in combat = engagement ability

+ + +

I was talking about shooting in my response to you, not an engagement action. That is when a pop-up is conducted. Not in combat. So the BM I was referencing was for "coming under fire, place one BM".

Hope that helps.

I think thats my issue Tacman,  Jetbikes cannot perform pop up shooting attacks, only vypers.

Interestingly, jet bikes have the assault move in 40K, which regular skimmers do not, actually making them better at avoiding an HTH action.

_________________
"Advance to the Rear!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
jfrazell,

That is interesting, I agree.

If we need to represent that they are to skilled at avoiding combat, then wouldn't it be better to apply the Tau philosophy of jetpacks in E:A? I mention this as both Tau jetpacks and Eldar jetbikes have the exact same move of 6" in the assault phase in 40K.

+ + +

In E:A, when Tau jetpack formations are charged, you first get to respond with move (instead of a move to close with the enemy after they charge). Then chargers move. If that keeps you out of base to base, great, if it doesn't you fight in base to base with the Tau.

+ + +

Seems like the Eldar jetbike would be more accurately reflected with such a rule that being able to always force a FF in my opinion.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jfrazell
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:21 pm
Posts: 144
I'm actually more amenable to that then juumppacks.  However, I want to playtest the impact of these multiple changes on jetbikes to see how strongly they have been impacted.

_________________
"Advance to the Rear!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
jfrazell,

Fully agree.

I think you have to test this in baby steps. There's enough going on with Sotec's "single *" must-have changes that the list should be tested several times by many before Sotec's ideal list of "double **" should be tested.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jfrazell
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:21 pm
Posts: 144
party on. We'll see how they work.

_________________
"Advance to the Rear!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Tactica @ Aug. 22 2006,15:01)
QUOTE
Mosc,

You have an interpretation of my argument and assume to have invalidated it, that's fine. I've gained an appreciation for your opinion. I really don't think we are communicating intelligently anymore. I'm putting an end to this debate.

Thank you.

(Assuming this was directed at me as Mosc hasn't posted recently).

Fair enough.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Tactica @ Aug. 22 2006,18:08)
QUOTE
There's enough going on with Sotec's "single *" must-have changes that the list should be tested several times by many before Sotec's ideal list of "double **" should be tested.

Well you have my full agreement on this at least...

My own group is pretty keen on some of Sotecs **'s though. I can see the pulse change being a favourite houserule even if it doesn't make it through the ERC.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mohawk
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:04 am
Posts: 81
funny, i mentioned the Tau thing on page 2, post 22
No one seemed interrested...

As I said then - that rule would represent how the eldar jetbike mechanic works in the current ed of wh40k (and only there) pretty good. I would support it as the "least bad" change, but still think 5+ save should be enough for starters.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jfrazell
 Post subject: thoughts on jetbikes
PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:21 pm
Posts: 144
I am in complete agreeemtn there Mohawk.

_________________
"Advance to the Rear!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 7
  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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