regarding heavy infantry, i agree w/ GlynG above. but i had assumed when i first read this that it would effect a lot of the core units. but as nealhunt stated, most of these were borderline anyway. so if we can have it as a rule going foreward that might help future list (tyrannids). so if it doesn't change any existing armies, i say go for it.

I still don't see any need for "heavy infantry". We don't need another class that is almost identical to LV.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Heavy infantry strikes me as a can of worms.  If it had been instituted from the beginning it would have been cool, but I can't think of anything more appropriate for the term 'heavy infantry' than Space Marines.  Unless you are willing to go back and changed them up, it doesn't seem to be needed.

Application of the Light Vehicle description seems like it would be a simpler approach even if the description itself was a bit of a stretch (much like the ability walker used for certain tanks - not a great descriptor but the mechanic works just fine).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

It's all about movement and terrain.  The goal is to represent a vehicle that truly moves as easily as infantry.  You can get sort of close with Walker, but infantry have some important advantages that Walker doesn't get.  Walker doesn't allow the vehicle to move into buildings.

The driving points on the old Tau Broadside debates were "They should be hit by AT" in the LV camp versus "They should move like infantry" in the infantry camp.

Chroma is proposing to achieve the same goal in the Tyranid list with "Agile" special ability, which I think is perfectly functional as an alternative to a new unit category.

===

Actually, now that I think about it, a special ability would probably be easier for most people to accept than a new unit category...

_________________
Neal

Yep, I'd be much happier with a special rule that just said to treat the LV as moving like infantry. The effect is the same but it doesn't mess with the core rules.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Could someone re-state the "Agile" ability, and how that stacks up with 'big' infantry?

I agree that 'Walker' and 'Mounted' are essentially movement / terrain abilities to vary the effects of the core rules. However there is no equivalent ability that affects firing in the desired way, and trying to use the various unit types to achieve this is inappropriate. I agree with Neal that it seems we need a new "Ability" that can be applied to units, something like:

"BIG unit  
'Big' units have some significant distinction (usually size) that means they stand out from other units in the formation, and so may be targetted when being fired at by direct fire."

Note this is deliberately worded to allow it to be applied to vehicles as well as infantry.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Essentially it's given to a light vehicle and makes it treat terrain like infantry, thus achieving the same goal as heavy/big infantry without needing a new unit type.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

So it is another terrain modifying ability rather than a shooting / target modifier. I thought the whole debate centered around the size of Tyranid Warriors and that they naturally stood out as a target.

IIRC much of the debate centres on the impact of the change. Creating a new ability allows us to define the effects more narrowly and so is is both more appropriate and more flexible. For example, we could specify a limit (eg up to half of the firing dice may target the "Big" units) or that only MW may be used to target "Big units". Equally I would suggest that Barrage weapons and indirect fire cannot single out "Big units".

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

It does, so the solution was to make them LV so they could be targetted by AT fire, i.e. picked out, and agile so they still moved like infantry.

There was never a suggestion that "big" units should be able to be picked out seperately with AP fire.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

To quote myselve onthe relevant Tyrand thread:

- Infantry = single Wound models, 3-7 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k unit.
- Mounted Infantry = single Wound models, 2-4 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k (Jet-)Bike, Cavalry or Beasts unit.
- Light Vehicle = a single Vehicle with all around Armour of 10 or a single (Jet)-Bike, Cavalry or Beast model with more than one Wound in Wh40k.
- Armoured Vehicle = a single Vehicle with armour 11 or greater on at least one side or a single Monstrous Creature (usually with at least Toughness 6 and at least 4 Wounds)in Wh40k.
- War Engine = War Engine (usually with at least 2 Structure Points) or a Gargantuan Creature (usually with at least Toughness 7 and at least 5 Wounds) in Wh40k.

What really is missing is Heavy Infantry
= models with more than one Wound, 1-3 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k unit.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Yes, this is probably more sensible and intuitive than making them agile LV, though the effect is the same.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I think the "Big" rule attached to INF is a better option than "Agile" attached to LV purely because it's a simpler easier to understand change (Essentially "Big - may be hit with AT weapons" is easier than using LV (essentially an AV modifier) and Agile (movement modifier)).

"Big" would allow the infantry to gain cover saves/modifiers and hide behind AV's while "Agile LV's" does not.

But again only for armys going forward and major old army revisions.

Umm, at the risk of demonstrating my senility, why should "big" units be susceptible to AT fire?

As I understood it, AT capability defined the ability for a weapon to defeat the armour of a single unit (vehicle). I thought that AT fire could not materially harm infantry because of the number of infantry involved and because of the significantly reduced rate of fire of AT weaponry.

I see "big" only conferring the 'Sniper' ability to some firing units, otherwise IMHO it will unbalance things. It also allows a greater degree of graduation in the E:A mechanics; if you need to go further you can still apply LV. I might add, that I also considered that we could apply "big" to all-vehicle formations where we wanted to allow the firer to pick out certain key vehicles under particular circumstances (perhaps the commander's highly decorated vehicle).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

New thread for the Heavy Infantry discussion.

_________________
Neal