Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Demolisher part2
Morg
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:33 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Ireland

(Hena @ Aug. 16 2007,18:53)
QUOTE
MW is getting too prevalent and save more and more pointless.

But that is not a problem introduced by the Marine list and won't certainly be changed by not giving the Vindicator a MW attack.

The SM list has no real ranged MW attacks bar the Titans.




_________________
Generosity rules where 6mm soldiers are concerned.
--
Looking for players near Dublin - get in touch with me!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The SM list has no real ranged MW attacks bar the Titans.


Which is why Warhounds are so common... they're patching a big hole in the Marine armylist.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lord Inquisitor
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
I still don't quite understand why the Demolisher should have Ignore Cover.

It isn't like that in 40K - it's a siege/titan killer type weapon.

Personally I would keep Ignore Cover for true "flamer" type weapons.

(Incidentally, I'm one of the "MW but not Ignore Cover" camp)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
(Incidentally, I'm one of the "MW but not Ignore Cover" camp)


I'd put myself there too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
MW4+ or MW5+IC :)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Marines need something to get infantry out of cover. If you take them away the vindi IC, you will NEVER get rid of infantry in ruins.

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Otterman
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:24 pm 
I'm glad that you guys argue about rules, so I don't have to.
Top
  
 
Niblebitzer
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:00 am
Posts: 154
Location: Kirkkonummi, Finland

(Evil and Chaos @ Aug. 16 2007,18:26)
QUOTE
The SM list has no real ranged MW attacks bar the Titans.


Which is why Warhounds are so common... they're patching a big hole in the Marine armylist.

They are not only patching, those dogs are just a bit too great at what they do at that cost.

That patching sounds so horrible, like lack of MWs was unintended error that had slipped into SM list.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Niblebitzer
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:00 am
Posts: 154
Location: Kirkkonummi, Finland

(Soren @ Aug. 16 2007,18:47)
QUOTE
Marines need something to get infantry out of cover. If you take them away the vindi IC, you will NEVER get rid of infantry in ruins.

Give em some BM and kick some butt in FF. Works every time.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
The frequency of MW is more of a Codex-creep problem IMO than a mistake made with the SMs.  While I agree the SMs really don't have a good MW pool to take from, this could become a slippery slope if we aren't too careful.  I'll switch my vote to MW as well with the general warning to everyone that MWs should be handed out sparingly on all lists, as Hena pointed out.  Perhaps some of the list developers and champs out there should review their own lists and see if any of these MWs can be removed.  Food for thought.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I recently removed MW status from the Stormsword's main gun in the Death Korps list for this very reason.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
thurse
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Hi.

First, it really depends if you use the experimental allocation rules or not... ( By the way guys, I really think that the PDF of the lists developped here should mention the ruleset they were designed for... )
So I'll assume that the experimental rules are used.


Macro weapons are not as powerful as it seems especially in a formation that combined MW and non MW attacks, as MW hits often land on the same unarmored target.
In assault a MW attack is always worse than 2 normal attacks. In shooting, well it depends as it works on both tanks and infantry.

Fluffwise, I really think this cannon deserve MW. I don't know if it has changed, but in w40k 2nd edition, is was described as one the most effective anti armor weapon.

Would it be problem to modify this weapon? Let's have a look at it :
-The baneblade needs a boost, so adding MW to it is a way to tweek it. IMHO it could even get an extra MW FF attack.
-The LR demolisher do not need a change. If we really want to chenge the demolisher canon, giving it a MW weapon and upping the cost should not be a problem.
-The main problem is the vindicator. The only time I've considered it useful is as an upgrade of a predator detachment, as it adds bulk and firepower.

So going MW is not unbalancing for me...

Would it solve the problem of the baneblade and the vindicator? I'm not sure because of their position in their respective list.
- The baneblade competes with shadowsword, which are always great even against armies without WE and with the warhound, which is overpowered for me.
- The vindicator competes with other upgrades for tactical. Honestly, before adding a vindi to a tac detachment, I would add 6 razorbacks first. And Whow has ever used them with assault marines? They would be better with devs! ( and it is more with the fluff IMHO )
- As a detachment, they compete with predators, which are better now. With MW they could have a slightly different role

So overall, I vote MW. Even with that, vindicators and baneblade will never be no-brainers, just little more balanced and attractive
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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