Quote:
Quote: (Hena @ 16 Jan. 2009, 06:54 )
Few things only. I don't have time now to comment point / unit stat balance here.
1. Don't use 50cm range.
2. The Blood Lust special is probably too good and affects game play too much. Normally you'd have to balance the unit putting by trying to shoot with it vs getting killed. This just means that you put your heavy hitters in front so that they don't die first and avoid suppression in one go.
3. Why Lance on Kamelei swords?
4. Rakkat riders. You have 2MW attacks on first strike. I think that's too good.
5. Brood Boss and Basileus should be Character not Infantry.
6. Ketzali. These have Inspiring, that should mean that there is about max 1 or 2 per formation of these. I didn't see them in list itself, so don't know how they would be used.
Edit: Can you add some background on what the list is trying to be? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? How it should play (fast, slow, durable, powerful at close range or something)?
Great questions, Hena. I guess many of the issues you bring up stem from this list being derived (in part) from a set of miniatures, rather than the reverse.
DRM's 'fluff' is thinner... though I think one element of the basic fluff is that it is ...somewhat... 'harder' (or at least 'non-spikey) sci-fi than the WH40k universe (and it's an interesting issue how the fluffs could be merged). I think the idea behind Kraytonians is that they're a civilized, honor-bound, warrior society -- somewhere between Klingons and Kzinti. Between their green skin and their predilection for close combat, they might be mistaken for Orks... but they are also self-consciously tech leaders in certain areas.
Basically their distinguishing features are:
Blood lust/casualty tolerance... of some sort,
Weak(er) infantry at range,
Fast, skimmer-based light vehicles.
'Hot' air units
bleeding edge teleport tech, coupled with a bunch of 'loonies' willing to take the risk...
I appreciate Td29's effort to bang out the list -- the basis, of course, is the relatively simple lists provided with SOW. I have no idea how he guesstimated the unit ratings, etc., but I think he was right to stick with the (arbitrary) SOW list, mainly to allow a degree of interoperability.
At this point, I think SOW has set up their spectrum of army lists ranging from 'shooty,' armor-heavy humans, to mid-range 'toasters' (androids), to lizards with a preference for tooth and claw, to bugs with only tooth and claw.
Just in terms of basic formation sizes, however, the humans aren't quite IG -- if one could be forgiven for suspecting IG was modeled on WWII Soviets, then the Arcadians might resemble a more 'Western' army in training and doctrine.
The problem, of course, in making an ideal port of all of these armies is distinguishing them from already extant E:A archetypes. But a quick, dirty, but successful port is one that allows owners of DRM armies to put a balanced force on an E:A table as well... without necessitating rebasing and reorganizing.
