Re: [NetEpic ML] Some thing about V5

From: cibernyam <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 03:55:50 +0200

> 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.


I don't know the "state of art" on aspect warrior special abilities in the
last WH40k but I remember very nasty effectsin older versions. On termies,
well I wouldn't say they are so powerful in CC with only a power glove.
Still, the armour takes a lot of these +6 CAF. Veterany is not so
determinant, IIRC there was an increase on fighting ability but not in
attacks while these aspect warriors are also expert CC fighters.

I just checked the stats under WH40k-RT rules. Howling Banshees were
fearsome (Defender can not shot or run while charged at and in CC can only
attack the banshee with a 6 on a d6), Scorpions did extra damage when
striking CC rounds. Initiative (which was more important in RT) is really
high for CC aspect warriors.

> >
> > 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.

I'm talking of SM CC able troops compared to Aspect warriors, not SM
compared to the Eldar (with guardians and scouts). Aspect Warriors are very
good (better) specialists but lack the all-round versatility of SM. You can
use a SM tactical detachment for a lot of things and they always do it well.
The tactical possibilities of each aspect warrior group (Save for hawks) by
itself is quite limited. Guardians are not very good CC troops.

> >
> > 3+1 reasons why rhinos do "dress" with SM:
> >
>
> Yes, but I think that must be an option.
>
It would be nice to have a cheaper SM assault company without rhinos,
specially when you expect a jungle-dense battlefield, but it would also be
nice to have rhinos armed with volcano cannons in open battlefields. Well, I
still think SM army can couple with terrain handicaps in the same or better
conditions than other armies. I'm not very much for the possibility to field
SM detachments without transport since it's not fluffy unless we are
talking of drop pods which actually are transports. I'm not also to improve
SM transport easily. The combination infantry-rhino has become a classical
definition of SM armies. Indeed, a SM army is infantry and Rhinos plus some
Land Raiders, bikes and Land Speeders and a little specialist material like
rhino variants, light artillery and other not so common units. A SM company
card is 18 stands plus an HQ and 10 rhinos. And what is not that is not a
classical SM company.

This doesn't mean that you cannot design a new chapter where assault troops
like to wander around without rhinos (but with a good reason - jungle
homeworld may be one).

> The Imperial Guard, who is more rigid have
> the choice. Orks and eldar too. Why not SM ?

IG is more rigid in some parameters and SM is more rigid in others. That's
the fluff.

Until the appearence of Chimeras in the Titan Legions era, this was not so.
IG companies could only be transported in Leviathans, Capitol Imperialis,
Gorgons and underground vehicles. Even then, Chimeras were only designed for
Tech Guard army. Only after that GW noticed that the income from IG army
miniatures in WH40k could be raised adding more tanks apart from Leman Russ,
started the Chimera revolution. Indeed, I've never played with them on the
table. Metal transport for IG companies is too expensive (the miniatures).
Well, actually, all miniatures are too expensive now.

Orks can choose to have or not have transport for *some* clans, and you
cannot choose to have your mobs divided. I would gladly forget on the
transport matter just to have mobs divided in smaller units. But then it
wouldn't be an ork army.

Eldar can choose to give or not give transport to guardian companies, but
that doesn't make much of a difference. Their assault troops do not come
with transport and that means that a transported CC unit costs you 2 support
cards because you don't have a CC infantry company. I don't think this is
also a bargain. You need a company card for every two and a half units of
transported CC infantry or you must buy falcon hosts wich, in the end, is
probably the better option.

Beware of the danger of changing the organization in the cards. Then we can
also ask ourselves, why 6 stands per detachment and why not 5? or maybe 4?
Or why don't we just buy the army on a stand per stand basis and then
organize everything as we see fit? Because then we will be playing Epic 40k
or Epic:A and not NetEpic. I think this is a convention we took from SM 2nd
ed and we stuck onto it since then. I'm not against changing things but I
don't want to give a chance for NetEpic to become just a follow-up of GW
politics. I mean, GW changes a lot of things of their games from time to
time due to comercial reasons (which is very legitimated but normally quite
incosistent with the previous rules and fluff) and we should always take
this into mind when comparing.

>
> In Jungle or swamps, Rhino are useless.
>

A lot of things are useless in jungle and swamps. Same applies for the
opponent. And normally there is not a lot of jungle/swamps. In the case of
extreme terrain just buy extra T-hawks.


>
> >
> > - 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.
>
Lan Raiders are too expensive and slow to be used as effitient transports.
Either they shoot and advance 20 cm (for most infantry this is the same or
less than charging and thus transport is not a real advantage) or charge 40
cm and lose one firing turn. I prefer to lose firing turns with transports
that cost four times less. T-Hawks and drop pods are nice, but some people
limit the amount of T-Hawk and off table points. I always take T-Hawks but
also try tonot abuse of them.

> - 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...
>
Well, it is the only expendable unit of SM. All armies need expendable units
(which, as you point, are only expendable one time, but if they could be
expended more than once then wouldn't be expendable :-) ). In a normal game
(3-4 turns) Assault stands will fight 2-3 turns of CC. Using the Rhinos in
the right moment is part of the commander ability. It doesn't mean that it
is a must, but the sacrifice of some rhinos can give a close victory or save
a near defeat.

> It's dangerous because you bring troops
> near to breakpoint...

Oh, well, if you loose the combat you will also get closer to breakpoint,
it's just that your 16,6 point Rhino sacrifice can give you an easy victory
against a 50 point ork nob. Anyway, if you had a transportless company you
would have a lower break point and then the same would happen.

> > - 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.

No problem. I checked out since I was not completely sure. In v5H of the
core rules is at the bottom of page 16. It is classed as an optional rule,
but I think sooner or later is going to become core, since it is quite
senseless for tracked transports to try to follow their transported troops
under some circumstances (like you pointed: jungles, swamps) or when their
duty is finished. Also, the possibility to issue separate orders allows for
a richer tactical game IMHO (specially in the case of termies and Land R).

> > 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 ?
>
Transport other troops, seize/save objectives, pin other units, screen HQs
under crossfire, ... I repeat that there's a lot of tactical possibilities
for cheap expendable fast transports. It's true that a transport is a trap
for infantry inside (even with a bail out roll) and impede shooting, but
still has better armour than most infantry. It won't be the first time I
saved an important HQ unit embarking it on a rhino and crossing fingers for
the rhino plates to stop infantry guns.

>
> >
> > Rhinos have A LOT of tactical uses, just experiment :-)
> >
>
> I banned them from my chapter.
> They're not usefull and not versatile.
>
I simply don't agree. Just think that a Rhino is a unit as good as any other
to maintain an objective at the end of turn.

>
> >
> >>> 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...
>
I think that the meaning was 'elite troops' in the sense that they had the
'elite' ability. SM are wonderful fighters, but 'elite' ability means
special troops meant to conduct special operations, either like SWAT,
terminators, assassins and so on, rather than usual battlefield troops.

> > 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...

That's a matter of opinion. I still prefer Rogue Trader. But I think you're
wrong in one point: SM 2nd edition was released in September/october 91 at
the astonishly high price of 24.99 pounds (a complete reaver costed 4.99
pounds. Yeah, you read it right. How much do you say it costs now?). Prices
checked in WD 142UK. WH40k2 was released two years later: october 93 at
34.99 pounds. A terminator costed 2.50 pounds (what? yeah, you also read it
right again) and you could buy the classical green terminator boxed set (8
terminators) for 14.99 pounds. Prices checked in WD 166UK. Thus, SM2nd ed
was based in Rogue Trader.

Oh the prices... I think I should buy a lot of minis now ... just to sell
them four years later...


> I think that bolter, stormboltern heavy bolter,
> shuriken catapult and other like-weapon are all
> inefficient with their 6+ to hit...

I simply don't agree. The efficiency is balanced with other weapons.

> >
> > 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
>

Mmmh... I'm not pretty sure that this would work. I think that bolter fire
to hit is pretty well adjusted while weapons with save modifier do not mean
they are useless against infantry. Just think about SM devastators, they
have a -1 but still they have a lot of anti-personnel heavy weapons. Or also
heavy weapon terminators with their cyclones, assault cannons and heavy
flamers, also have -1 ST. Also LR crusaders have assault cannons with -1 ST
which should not worsen anti-infantry effects. A Quake cannon has no barrage
but still makes a BOOM big enough to destroy a platoon position easily. In
the end all weapons would need to be classed as armour piercing or
anti-personnel. And still there would be some under both names. Of course, a
laser based weapon it's not the best idea against infantry, but, well, this
is not ASL and sometimes realism must be sacrificied to increase simplicity.

I want to thank you for your opinions and comments, some of them are very
good ideas and others seem to me a bit too complicated to insert in the core
without affecting the balance of the rules, while still having a good
background IMHO. It is surprising the monstruous amount of unbalancing
factors that lurk behind every rule we have discussed during the last years.
It is always very difficult to come across a fair rule. And near impossible
to combine that with realism. Anyway, real world isn't just fair at all.
:-)


Albert
Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 01:55:50 UTC