>> Farseer would be better on a vyper. In 40k,
>> eldar characters are on a platform (in place of
>> shuriken canon). So, he would be only armed with
>> a single shuriken catapult.
>
> Not necessarily. Vyper Jetbikes in 40K can often
> upgraded their twin-linked Shuriken Catapults to
> a Shuriken Cannon as well as the heavy weapon, so
> its not out of place.
>
It's possible. But there's no Vyper with
this option in Epic. It may be an upgrad idea.
For Saim Hann : an elite vyper squadron with
two shuriken catapult...
>
>>> I think Striking Scorpions and Howling
>>> Banshee are too mighty in close combat. +6 is
>>> too much. +3 would be more rigth. With a
>>> laspistol (25 cm, 5+).
>>
>> Not compared to other CC troops. Banshees and
>> Scorpions are CC masters. The +6 is fine when
>> you look at their cost.
>
Their cost can be lowered.
In W40k2, aspect warrior have the same
Close Combat, the same Attack and equivalant
weapons. SM have better stamina. And better
armor than Banshee.
It's what I think banshees and scorpions
could have the same CAF as Assault SM (+3).
Their special ability are efficient to
make the difference.
>
> I agree, their CAF is OK. We can discuss if SM
> have low CAF (which I don't think so), but still
> Termies have +6 and CC termies (which are almost
> unstoppable in CC in WH40K) have +8 (note that
> there is no ST in CC, the armour is accounted
> in the CAF).
>
Yes. But Terminator are veterant SM with
better skills. Veteran SM are more powerfull
than aspect warrior. They've got better armor
and more powerfull close combat weapons ! Why
terminator would just have same CAF than aspect
warrior ? Why close combat Terminator have only
+2 against an banshee or scorpion ? These aspect
warrior are incredibly more powerfull in Epic
with theirs special skill.
>
> Note also that SM have good CC abilities but
> against Aspect warriors thier strength is (or
> should be) higher numbers and firepower.
>
In the fluff, SM aren't more numerus
than eldars.
>>
>> Normaly, Khorne is opposed to Slaanesh
>> and Tzeench to Nurgle.
>
> Actually, it should be the other way around. Khorne
> hates magic and would not go near Tzeench. Slaneesh
> is the god of pleasure and would probably find Nurgle
> offensive.
>
Slaneesh is realy depraved... He/she can does
several thing with bubon, bile and maggot... :p
>
> And these are based on the ORIGINAL
> oppositions from the Realm of Chaos books.
>
Ok. I never played them because I don't like
Rogue Trader era books and fluff (a rough copy
make with bric-a-brac, here a little and there
a little). I prefer second edition fluff (more
homogeneous and rational) for 40k fluff and
Warhammer RPG for Battle fluff (or WFB 2).
Everyone to his taste I suppose...
Note that Warhammer Fantasy Battle 2nd edition
(and RPG) is older than Realms of Chaos Books.
More "original". Mardaag nostalgia...
>
>
>>> IMPERIAL SPACE MARINES
>>>
>>> I don't understand why the more polyvalent
>>> troops are allways dressed with theirs rhinos !
>>> It's a real handicap in full of grounds
>>> like jungle, ruined city, mountain...
>>> It's allways an handicap for assault marines.
>>> Assault marines are equiped with jetpack to advance
>>> unimpeded. But rhinos are like a chain-and-ball
>>> punishment ! :o(
>>
>> IMHO marines need all the punishment they get ;-).
>> I agree though. A standard Marine chapter should
>> have mechanised and nonmechanised versions of each
>> company/detachment.
>
Yes.
>
> 3+1 reasons why rhinos do "dress" with SM:
>
Yes, but I think that must be an option.
The Imperial Guard, who is more rigid have
the choice. Orks and eldar too. Why not SM ?
In Jungle or swamps, Rhino are useless.
>
> - Fast (You want your slow troops to be deployed fast.
> You want your fast troops to be deployed faster. Few
> land transports go faster than 50 cm in charge)
>
There's other choices : Land Raider, Thunder Hawk
and Drop Pod. I prefer pay more points to got them
than rhinos.
>
> - Cheap (Are there any transport cheaper than
> Rhinos? And these ones come with Morale rating 2+!)
>
Useless after they set SM down... No weapon
to support troops.
>
> - Expendable (The perfect companion of an assault
> stand (beside another assault stand) is a Rhino.
> To fight first against any foe, die and give an
> extra D6 to your assault stand raising the average
> CAF in +3.5.
>
This method can't work once again. Rhino
can't survive...
It's dangerous because you bring troops
near to breakpoint...
>
> - Versatile (IIRC from NetEpic 4.1 it is possible
> to give separate orders to troops and transports
> from the same detachment and coherency may not be
> observed between transport and troops). This is
> quite useful also with termies and Land Raiders.
>
I didn't read it. I'm sorry.
>
> This means you can also start with your assault
> troops outside their transports and roam freely.
>
Is it usefull ? What are functions of an empty
transport vehicule ?
>
> Rhinos have A LOT of tactical uses, just experiment :-)
>
I banned them from my chapter.
They're not usefull and not versatile.
>
>>> I think that SM would be able to have
>>> better fire skill. Like 4+.
>>
>> Nope. Gods no. SM are already fantastic.
>> Infantry small arms have a 5+ to hit across
>> the board and it takes a special exception
>> to move it down to 4+. Only truly elite
>> troops should have a 4+.
>
SM are elite troops...
>
> Well, the truth is that NetEpic does not care
> too much about the fire ability of the shooter.
> Thus, a bolter is equally deadly in the hands
> of an ork and in the hands of a SM. Is the
> firing ability so important?
>
There's a great difference between an
imperial guard and a space marine.
IG : CT 3 (Lasgun : Strengh 3)
SM : CT 4 (Bolter : Strengh 4) + Rapid Fire
(SM can shoot twice if he doesn't move)
>
> In WH40k (The last edition I read)
>
Ah... I play with W40k2. This edition is
contemporaneous with SM2/TL. And better that
the last edition, but it's another subject...
>
> This procedure is simplified in SM2/NetEpic into
> two rolls: to hit and save. Hence, the to hit in
> NetEpic represents both "to hit" roll and "damage"
> roll.
>
Yes, I know, understand and be agree with this.
>
> it was not possible to destroy a Land Raider with
> bolter fire in WH40k. But you can in NetEpic because
> there is no toughness/armor value taken into account.
>
I suppose that each squad have at less one
antitank weapon.
>
>>> In SM2/TL, I concede a +1 bonus against
>>> infantery for all anti-personnel weapon like
>>> bolter, storm bolter & co... To give infantery
>>> back the like, I add a modifier to fire against
>>> it equal to TSM.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are suggesting here. Could
>> you give us a working example?
>
I think that bolter, stormboltern heavy bolter,
shuriken catapult and other like-weapon are all
inefficient with their 6+ to hit...
>
> The idea of a diferent "to hit" roll for infantry and
> armour is not new at all. Last time discussed was with
> the first version of Epic:A IIRC. I still prefer the
> actual system. The present system is simpler but still
> subtle.
>
Yes, I agree with you. But I don't want
different caracs for weapon, just bonus or malus.
Bolter : 6+ with no svg modif => 5+ against infantry
Land Raider's Las Canon : 5+ to hit with -2 to svg : 6+ against infantry
>
> If you waste volcano cannon shots to kill infantry
> and attack SH tanks with bolters and other antiin
> fantry weapons you don't need to give different
> values to the "to hit" rolls. You will lose anyway.
>
May be you're right.
Archi Magister Feagul
"ANHAK DRAKKHEN AGHNAHIR HURTHD !!!!!"
.
Received on Wed May 26 2004 - 22:56:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:59 UTC