| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
|
(Lord Inquisitor @ Dec. 22 2006,21:22)
QUOTE
(Evil and Chaos @ Dec. 22 2006,15:14)
QUOTE The 'thin rear armour' rule was an abstraction designed to represent the extreme differences in armour values between the front (Which has a 4+ invulnerable save against glancing hits!) and the rear.
This is represented by the Gorgon's massive shield-ramp.
Since the rear armour is IIRC exactly the same as a Baneblade anyway, I decided to go with the front-arc rule. If it has the same rear armour as a baneblade... I wouldn't bother with the "thick front armour" rule at all. What's it's armour value in 40K? 14 with a save against glancings? I don't think that's worth making a special rule for. Just make is straight 4+RA. Such fiddly rules belong in 40K. It doesn't sound like it is really significantly different in armour than a baneblade at the Epic scale. Your list has plenty of other special rules.
The difference is that Gorgons are veritable deathtraps. The destruction of a Gorgon leads to the death of 10 infantry stands with no saves.
The invulnerable save to the front arc has an important reason to exist, just as the glancing save does in 40k.
EDIT: having had an actual look at the 40K rules (duh)... the damn thing is open topped in 40K. That makes it significantly more vulnerable! You've made it DC3, 4+RA and an invulnerable save on top... considerably tougher than a Baneblade, yet in 40K it would be arguably less tough especially against macro-weapons, whereas you've now made it the only WE I can think of with a save against Titan Killer weaponry!
As I mentioned above, the next version of the list has an exception which only allows the save against AT-type fire.
Other than being open-topped, the Gorgon has very good armoured protection and the same DC as a Baneblade in 40k, plus the glancing rule.
That's too tough. Can you make it a Light Vehicle? (I don't see any problem with the type being War Engine, Light Vehicle). Perhaps up the armour to 3+RA.
Not a chance. It's a DC-3 War Engine in 40k, exactly the same as a Baneblade, but with superior armoured protection (Although it has mildly more damaging critical results due to being open-topped).
Fair enough that your opinion differs... but why is it that the infantry heavy Death Korps have access to two more patterns of super-heavy than the mechanised Steel Legion? And they clutter up your list - you've got four monster WE datafaxes in your infantry list.
The datafaxes could easily be compacted... I left a large ammount of space for fluff.
The Steel Legion list doesn't have the two FW superheavies because Jervis didn't want to give any sales to FW. It's that simple.
That doesn't make an awful lot of sense ... the Thunderers are such short ranged tanks!
It's how it is though. Thunderers are meant to be quite rare (Though not as rare as Vanquishers or Destroyers).
Having the basic company as 100% Thunderers... well... it's a formation that just wouldn't appear in the background under 'normal' circumstances.
Still, fair enough if that's the fluff... but is that for Siege regiments? They would have far more thunderers than a normal regiment, one would assume.
Yep, but 'common' Leman Russ are still going to be the baseline.
I don't think this list should have the option of tank companies, now that it's based on an infantry-regiment.
The thunderers are slow, short-ranged siege cannons. I don't think they break the "feel" of the list... I wouldn't say it would be a problem.
I strongly feel that having a Tank Company in this list does not mesh with the background, let alone a Thunderer Tank Company.
Anyone else?
(Vanquishers) Again I disagree. They're a cheaper alternative to Destroyers, and they're 1 point superior in FF, and they have a Lascannon.
I can see why you would want them as a player... but then I might want thunderhawks too if I were only looking at stats.
Umm.
It makes 5 Leman russ variants ... in your infantry list. So why again do these infantry heavy Death Korps have access to two more patterns of Leman Russ than the mechanised Steel Legion?!
Because Jervis didn't want to generate sales for FW.
He didn't want SG losing sales, and he didn't want to deny access to some tanks to people who couldn't purchase from FW (Which is bunk now since you can only purchase SG models from online now too).
Also, fluffwise I find it hard to justify an army tha has access to Destroyers yet doesn't have access to the lower-tech Vanquisher.
Then why does your infantry Death Korps with their gas masks and their horses get Laser Destroyers at all? Why include it in the list?
It's not my list... it's GW's Death Korps... and their Death Korps have access to Tank Destroyers.
How could the WWII/I-themed Death Korps not have an affinity for tanks!
As to their technology... some of the concept sketches for the upcoming Death Korps line show DC-2/1 Heavy MBT's half way between the Baneblade and the Leman Russ.
They have very decent technology... but only for some arms of their military, the infantry, they get given the short stick.
I mean, the Steel Legion list has Rough Riders, and Warlord Titans... what's that all about?.
Anachronism runs deep in all GW games.
It's why we have Rough Riders, it's why we have tanks that look like they came from a past century and not a future one.
It's why Aeronautica Imperialis, with all the crazy jetfighters and flying titans, features just one guided missile:
The grot-guided rocket.
Yep.
5) Established the Thunderers as the main tank with Demolishers as rare and useful elite tanks.
That's the wrong way round fluffwise, except you also replace 'elite' with 'cheap'.
Demolishers are cheap fluffwise, and Thunderers are elite?
Opposite with swaps:
"Established the Demolishers as the main tank with Thunderers as the rare and useful cheap tanks."
Eh? What on earth is the advantage - fluffwise or gamewise - in the Thunderer, beyond points cost? I don't get it.
Other than Thick Top Armour (Rear in Epic)?
None.
They're cheaper, that's it.
But only tank companies would be allowed to take Destroyer upgrades (So the 6-tank platoons wouldn't have access to them), while you'd also end up with every infantry formation on the table taking 6 attached Destroyers.
Eh, forgot you could take multiple copies of the same upgrade. You could make it 0-1 per Company.
You'd still have an army full of Destroyers... they're meant to be very rare, but you could concievably take an army with no normal Leman Russ, yet plenty of Destroyers.
I don't see the problem of tanks being added to Infantry formations, beyond limiting the number of destroyers.
It just wouldn't happen.
The major problem at the moment with your list is that it has a dizzying array of armoured vehicle options, many of which are not available to Steel Legion armies - and the Death Korps are meant to be infantry while the Steel Legion are meant to be mechanised.
Blame Jervis. 
Plus, as I mentioned, the Death Korps in 40k will soon have access to plenty of even larger tanks which aren't in the Epic Steel Legion list.
You need to go through - again - and justify to yourself and to us why the list requires these units.
I'm quite happy with the current set of models.
I do find it quite likely that the DK in 40k will have access to Griffons though.
If there isn't a good reason why you need a laser destroyer, then that should perhaps be left for a tank regiment list.
They're Germans. 
And I would recommend not having more options than the parent list.
I understand your concern.
I perfectly understand why the Death Korps should have a Stormblade - it's a siege vehicle. But rather than giving them two shiny new super-heavies - that can't even be taken as Companies - you should limit them to two types of super-heavy, replacing one or other of the usual types with Stormblades (I recommended keeping the Baneblade as it is the archetypal super-heavy and it also carries the best weaponry as infantry support and siege equipment such as the demolisher - it is more in keeping with the 'lots of demolisher cannons' theme).
Shadowsword - Should be there as a long-range artillery support analogue. Also helps compensate for the list's lack of AT.
Stormsword - Siege tank conversion of a damaged Shadowsword hull. 'nuff said.
Stormblade - Mid-range anti-WE / Tank hitting power. Since the infantry lack this and tanks are hard to come by, this option is going to be useful. Again it is appropriate as it is normally a 'refit' of a Shadowsword hull rather than a new build, something which I see as appropriate to the Death Korps.
Baneblade - All-rounder, moderately useful in all situations.
In essence each super-heavy fulfills a very specific niche in the list, and I believe they're all justified in being there.
If I really, really had to pick one to drop it'd be the Stormblade, and I don't think even dropping one is nessesary.
And of what import is it that a Company formation is not allowed?
|
|
)