Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 8 of 22
  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 22  Next

Necrons v4.4 thoughts
zombocom
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Nicodemus: If your argument is that a volcano cannon should instakill a monolith then you can have no argument that meltaguns should not have extra armour penetration against them?

Macro weapons certainly shouldn't reduce living metal saves no matter which direction you look at it from.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nicodemus
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland
I think that BlackLegions version would be "best", but RA and INV would be easiest, simpliest and _it would not need new special rule_ (and it would not be annoying).

Special rules are inheritedly bad if they are not from Big Book.




_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Unfortunately it would also make the necron list impossible to play, since monoliths would just be far to fragile and would all get wiped out on the first turn.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nicodemus
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

(zombocom @ Jan. 30 2008,16:50)
QUOTE
Unfortunately it would also make the necron list impossible to play, since monoliths would just be far to fragile and would all get wiped out on the first turn.

:p :p ?Prove it by playtesting :p :p

Nah, that is sound theory.

Again I think of WE Monoliths. You cant barge them (at least you should not be able to), they are lot bigger than Land Raiders or Stompas, they can shoot (FF) living hell out of everybody.

Or maybe you should make monolith formations or give them Obelisks to protect them - Or even deploy them so that they are not in the open/in enemys face. ?:O

I think, no I am Sure, that it is possible to make perfectly working Necron list without living metal. Of course it would be Big Change.




_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:06 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Nicodemus @ Jan. 30 2008,16:05)
QUOTE
Epic stats are not based on a particular set of upgrades in 40K.


2 assault cannons on termies, anyone?

The stat lines are abstractions.  It's not literally 2 assault cannons per 5 Terminators.  It's just a bunch of weapons that cause 2x 30cm AP5/AT5 attacks.

Maybe the 20 terminators in a detachment have 8 assault cannons.  Maybe they have 3 assault cannons, 2 cyclone launchers, a couple heavy flamers, and sergeants with power claws.  The precise gear they use is utterly irrelevant at Epic scale.  No matter what the mix of weaponry is, the net result is 8 "assault cannon" attacks.

Same with Devastators - 8 missile launchers according to the stat line, but maybe that's 3 lascannons, 2 heavy bolters, a plasma cannon and a couple missile launchers that the guys are actually carrying.  Doesn't matter.  It's 8 attacks at AP5/AT6.

Think of them as generic "heavy weapons" instead of "weapon x."

In fact, for a large portion of playtesting, all infantry had 3 weapons - assault weapons (CC), small arms (FF), and heavy weapons (ranged).  There was a very long debate before publication about whether the weapons should be named at all.  In the end, they were given specific names in order to make them more characterful and distinct.  It's just for fun and was never intended to be reflective of specific underlying 40K mechanics.

However, it leads to exactly this kind of misunderstanding about direct translation of 40K stats.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:12 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

(zombocom @ Jan. 30 2008,17:50)
QUOTE
Unfortunately it would also make the necron list impossible to play, since monoliths would just be far to fragile and would all get wiped out on the first turn.

Hmhm..right...surely because most of the enemy units have TK weapons...

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD
It would require a DRAMATIC point drop in the cost of all the Necron warengines (less so in the case of the Pylon).

Either that or I'd have to give them an abosolutely insane number of Damage Capacity.  I'd litterally have to have the Abbatoir with 16-18, the Aeonic orb with 14-16, C'tan with 6-8, and the Monoliths would have to come in 3's or 4's in order to keep their points as they are, if I took out Living Metal.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:37 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
Or you add Void Shields. Necron spaceships are shielded so why shouldn't the bigger warengines?

But i vote for keeping Living Metal....at maximum change it to my proposal.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 31 2008,12:37)
QUOTE
Or you add Void Shields. Necron spaceships are shielded so why shouldn't the bigger warengines?

But i vote for keeping Living Metal....at maximum change it to my proposal.

I'm not very familiar with the BFG Necron rules.

But I do know that shields are out.  The WE for Necron are not to be "more of the same" or a "Necron version of Imperial Titans" they are to be unique and distinct.  That's why no walkers etc.

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:54 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
Hmm ok.

Perhabs a new idea:
In BFG a ship can be given a Damage Control order which halfe its firepower but gives it an 4+ invulnerable save against damage.
Necrons doing so get worse armour but a better invulnerable save. The bigger the ship the less worse the armour and the better the invulnerable save gets.

Perhabs Necron units with Living Metal could do something similar? On Marshall orders teir armour drops to 6+ RA but they gain an additional 4+ Invulnerable Save?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
corey3750
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 525
Location: Baltimore MD

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 31 2008,12:54)
QUOTE
Hmm ok.

Perhabs a new idea:
In BFG a ship can be given a Damage Control order which halfe its firepower but gives it an 4+ invulnerable save against damage.
Necrons doing so get worse armour but a better invulnerable save. The bigger the ship the less worse the armour and the better the invulnerable save gets.

Perhabs Necron units with Living Metal could do something similar? On Marshall orders teir armour drops to 6+ RA but they gain an additional 4+ Invulnerable Save?

wouldn't that be a more complicated special rule than Living Metal is currently?

_________________
Necron Army Champion
"Do not come whining to me because you are weaker than your enemy." - Alexander Corvinus
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Living metal is fine. The only guy really arguing against it has never seen it ingame.

Yeah, Apocalypse is quite strange. BUT it is _official_. GW:s aswer to "can monolith take hit by Volcano Cannon and shug it off like it was missile?" is "No, it blews apart".


Note that Apocalypse's rules are often skewed towards creating massive kill rates.

Thus the proliferation of Strength D weapons, which remove whole swathes of units, in order to make megabattles run faster.

Noone ever said Apocalypse was particularly balanced.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(zombocom @ Jan. 30 2008,16:30)
QUOTE
Corey: Destroyers have a multiple shot weapon in 40k whereas the heavy destroyer is single shot. It seems reasonable to me to have the heavy destroyer only have a single shot, though a more accurate one. At AT3+ I think they're roughly equal in power to the standard destroyers, when you take the firefight difference into account. Therefore there would be no need for a price increase for heavys, and a standard price could be kept. I'd suggest 375 and a possible speed decrease.

That should neatly bring them into ballance while keeping their role as a heavy shooting platform formation.

This sounds perfect.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Yup, there's absolutely nothing wrong with living metal at the moment. It's balanced out by the lack of shields and the ease of breaking living metal formations.




_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tv1013
 Post subject: Necrons v4.4 thoughts
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 148
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 30 2008,13:14)
QUOTE

(zombocom @ Jan. 30 2008,16:30)
QUOTE
Corey: Destroyers have a multiple shot weapon in 40k whereas the heavy destroyer is single shot. It seems reasonable to me to have the heavy destroyer only have a single shot, though a more accurate one. At AT3+ I think they're roughly equal in power to the standard destroyers, when you take the firefight difference into account. Therefore there would be no need for a price increase for heavys, and a standard price could be kept. I'd suggest 375 and a possible speed decrease.

That should neatly bring them into ballance while keeping their role as a heavy shooting platform formation.

This sounds perfect.

Agreed, its simple and effective.  Great idea.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 8 of 22
  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 22  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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