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

Demolisher part2
Moscovian
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

(Hena @ Aug. 17 2007,00:37)
QUOTE
This is problematic as is easily can add 3 MWs to two lists. And that is a bad start.

That's why we need to do something to counter that problem - make it a SM specific cannon if need be.

_________________
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  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK

(Moscovian @ Aug. 17 2007,12:19)
QUOTE

(Hena @ Aug. 17 2007,00:37)
QUOTE
This is problematic as is easily can add 3 MWs to two lists. And that is a bad start.

That's why we need to do something to counter that problem - make it a SM specific cannon if need be.

But then that breaks one of the core tenets of the E:A rule design, thus we have to change the vindicator cannon.  And round we go again.

I think the best approach is the one tentatively approaching consensus here, ie MW4+ (poss with IC, though perhaps try without first to see if it works) and up costing the russ demolisher (after all, it is not a particularly core IG unit and changing the cost shouldn't have a huge impact on the list)

After all the IG and SM lists arent the ones responsible for MW creep, so why worry about these lists whene there are others far more guilty of that crime.  After all not having another MW weapon in the marines (where it is sorely needed) doesnt address the problem of huge numbers of MW available in other lists.




_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK

(Hena @ Aug. 17 2007,12:34)
QUOTE
How is that "breaking" any tenets by changing the name of the weapon to 'Vindicators Demolisher'?

And Marines don't need more MW. They are quite effective with what they have.

Its not, which is my point.  I mean that to avoid breaking the tenets you have  to change the name, but that then puts it out of sinc with the 40k fluff which many people dont want.  Hence the argument keeps going in circles etc etc.  

At some point a decision has to be made, and I think that we are approaching this.

Also I feel marines arent effective as they stand.  Short of warhounds they have little effective anti war engine fire power.  Ok, there are terminators which are very effective, but also very expensive and lacking in flexibility once deployed  or there are landspeeders which are simply too fragile and do not have particularly reliable MW attacks either.  Vindicators having a MW 4+ would I feel really help here.  

PLus- having assault guns getting really close and firing right in the face of oncoming war engines is very much in keeping with the marine ethos, requiring you to carefully commit forces and protect them.  Just think of the balls that would require, its a really fitting image I think.




_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
My biggest concern is adding MWs into the IG list when it is clearly the best balanced list in Epic.  As soon as you do that you have taken something that works near-perfect and mucked with it for no good reason.  Now other armies will use the increase in power in the IG to justify their already gross number of MWs.  Instead of theose army lists getting adjusted down, they remain.  Now Orks and SMs and (gasp!) Even Eldar are moving through their revisions to increase their power marginally and so on.  This is an exaggeration of what happens but you get the idea - that is why they call it "creeping".  

If there is no way to avoid the IG change, then we shouldn't change the SM weapon either.

_________________
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  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:58 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
Apart from the Weirdboy i think that every MW in the Orks and Eldar lists is justified.
Perhabs the Oddboy upgrade is too cheap but thats it.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Ok, points taken both hena and moscovian.  Im still not convinced that it will be such a massive change to the IG, but then I  guess we will need playtesting to see.

The main reason I want to see an upgunned demolisher is for the vindicator and baneblade.  If the baneblade could be better improved in the main weapon dept and the vindicator cannons name was changed (and made MW) I would be happy though.

Just had another idea though- Instead of MW give the demolisher Lance and Ignore Cover.  That way it does its job  of blasting infantry out of cover and does the job of battering vehicles without neccesarily having MW creep.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:03 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
Lance sounds really interesting...

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
Hey guys, please take a look at a post I just made here:

Grand Unified Theory of why I think Demolisher Cannons are OK

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:41 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Regarding MW creep:  mainly a problem of Swordwind and Chaos and certainly not Marine and Guard. I do feel the ork oddboyz are overpowered (zzaps always problematically so, and soopa guns perhaps also now that the MW barrage change has been approved). Ork oddboyz is a subject for a different discussion of course.

Poorly conceived attempts to compensate for MW prevalence in other lists by artificially hampering Marine and Guard lists is not the correct way to proceed. Rather demolishers as MW in the marine and guard lists will mean  people can use less warhounds, speeders, termis and shadowswords than are currently taken as a patch to cover the Armour busting hole in those lists. Plus of course units that are otherwise condemned to be left sitting on the shelf will be seen again.

For the minority of people who want a 'demolishers shouldn't be MW' path - at least recognise that having different types of demolishers should be a dead idea. Forget it and concentrate on something more productive. (In fact I'd stop wasting your time on the ideas of anything other than MW demolishers but I know people love to beat dead horses). By the way Hena, your idea of completely revising the weapon naming system is a move towards the old Epic 40k system which was widely detested (but for the record I kinda liked it! :D) Perhaps we have an area of agreement there between the two of us (against everyone else!), however, for practical purposes I cannot seriously consider it at this stage, and I can imagine the howls of protest if I even raised it.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:43 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Back on topic - the MW for demolishers change is happening for now (in the handbook and for most players at least) including ignore cover.  However, there are some that feel that the IC is (1) Not warranted because it is not an ability of the weapon in 40k;  and/or (2) too powerful.  This issue is more worthy of consideration and I will explain my own reasoning here:

1: The 40k Demolisher does not have ignore cover that is true, but from the background it probably should have. However in game terms having IC in 40k would unbalance things so the cannon is without it ? which brings me to point 2.

2:  Is it too powerful in Epic? First a word on some of the evaluative statements made by people so far.  ?50% boost in power!? means little to me. I have to read dozens of scientific articles every week and this is not generally a useful way to present information.  A treatment trial could claim a 100% improvement in effectiveness. Look at the detail and that might mean that a 1 in a hundred treatment now helps 2 in a hundred people. That treatment is still nigh on worthless for my patients. In scientific terms you need to convert into language that means something practically meaningful. There are international scientific conventions on this but I?m not using those here because I?m sure it would just confuse most people.  Instead for epic I do consider ?number of kills? a useful way of looking at things. So let?s look at that in a basic form to get a feel for how things are now::

Vindicators:  Vindicators were considered very underpowered before. For a formation of four vindis, kills from shooting averaged about 1.5 to 2.5  infantry depending on armour, or about 1 light vehicle, or 0.5 heavy vehicles (4+RA), or 0.5 damage to most WE. In other words - pretty impotent for what is the most powerful gun in 40k.
Now they get a better gun and a 5cm speed boost to help them utilise it a little better.  This means they now average killing 2 infantry (and ignore basic armour on those), or 2 light vehicles, or 1 heavy vehicle, or 1 point of damage to most WE.
So for a 4 strong formation of AV?s with 4+ armour at 275 points, is that killing ability really overpowered? Your armour busting formation should kill 1 tank for you ? is that overpowered? In practical terms I don?t think so. (Note maybe they should go back to 300 points, but 275 for now because I actually think that is probably more appropriate and I want to encourage people to trial it)

Baneblades: Also considered very underpowered before. Now in addition to the demolisher boost above, their main gun will kill 0.33 rather than 0.25 light vehicles, or 0.17 rather than 0.13 heavy vehicles/DC to war engines, with 75cm range. Not much of a difference in practical terms. Heavy Bolters will average 1.5 rather than 0.5 hits against infantry at 30cm of range.
Now for a 200 point tank (or 500 for 3) is that killing ability really overpowered? Once again in practical terms I don?t think so. It seems more like just the sort of boost that was required.

One other thing to consider regarding ignore cover ? cover still has its uses against this ability. You can hide behind cover, or 10cm+ into it. This is a common and effective tactic, and it is something to consider in addition to the numbers above.  

One other thing to consider about demolishers and heavy bolters ? 30cm range means you have to get dangerously close to enemies rather than standing back and shooting.  If it is a tank, and with ignore cover ability, that encourages you to use it in urban and close terrain which are notoriously tank unfriendly environments. From a balance point of view it has to actually have a bit of teeth to make it worthwhile.


Lastly, the people who got sick of waiting and have been playtesting MW4+ and ignore cover on vindicators and baneblades, have had nothing but positive comments so far. (Heard nothing about LR demolishers yet but will be tweaking them slightly in any case - probably 25/50 points , please vote on this in poll here).

Thus I?m letting MW4+ IC stand for now.  Try and break it. If I see armies of nothing but vindicators or nothing but baneblades I will know we went wrong somewhere... (don't laugh armies of landraiders happened before the main Epic 40k (3rd edition rules) were modified!).


Now I?ve got to go and prepare a dinner party for 14 other shrinks?. fun fun :D

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Demolisher part2
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Markconz @ Aug. 17 2007,22:43)
QUOTE
Back on topic - the MW for demolishers change is happening for now (in the handbook and for most players at least) including ignore cover. ?...

[snip]

... Thus I?m letting MW4+ IC stand for now. ?Try and break it. If I see armies of nothing but vindicators or nothing but baneblades I will know we went wrong somewhere... (don't laugh armies of landraiders happened before the main Epic 40k (3rd edition rules) were modified!).

So let me get this straight: you've elected yourself the Imperial Guard and Space Marine army champion, and it's your way or the highway?

I think I'll chose the highway. ?I'll go back to lurking in the vain hope that something worth using comes out of the discussions here. ?But considering how this Demolisher Cannon discussion has gone I think my returns are diminishing.

Good bye.




_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 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