Some thing about V5 [LONG]

From: Archi Magister Fëagûl <mangonneau_at_...>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:25:30 +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.
>

        Termie : CC 5 / A1 (with parade with some weapon)

        Scorpion/Banshee : CC 4 / A 1 + 1 with parade

        Aspect Warrior have better chance to win the
  close combat. But it's hard to kill termies (great
  armor !). Chainsword or powersword are almost
  inneficiant against terminator armor.

        Tactical termie have lower chance to win but
  each time they hit aspect warrior, they kill them
  with their powerfull powerglove.

        Assault termie have the same power weapon
  (or better !) and more chance to win : +1 attack
  and pary abbility.

        In fact, banshee cry and scorpion darts
  are inneficiant against termies armor.

        I know that because I play SM against
  eldars and vice versa. In W40k2 and SM2/TL.


        In Epic system, it isn't the case... And
  that's a true problem...

        On the average warriors obtain these results :
Tactical Termies : 13 (6 + 2 x 3,5)
Close Termies : 15 (8 + 2 x 3,5)
Scorpions : 16,5 (6 + 3 x 3,5)
Banshees : 13 (6 + 2 x 3,5)

        Banshee obtain equal score than tactical
  termie and just 2 less than close one... But
  with 1/3 chance to kill their opponent !

        Scorpion are better than both tactical
  and close termies.

        So, I think that +6 is too hight for
  close aspect warriors. And I play eldar...
  (so I don't just try to lower an opponent
  faction).


>
>> 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.
>

        Yes. But alteration I would have don't
  change close aspect warrior superiority against
  tactical SM. And just change a little against
  assault SM. But it's more "realist".


>
> The tactical possibilities of each aspect
> warrior group (Save for hawks) by itself
> is quite limited. Guardians are not very
> good CC troops.
>

        But guardians are cheaps. SM don't have
  such cheap troops. Ideal to keep objectives
  and have a good fire power : same efficiance
  and more base to fire.


>
>>> 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.
>

        Pppfff... I'm not a stupid noob... I
  just need a reasonable correction.


>
> 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.
>

        It's fluffy... SM are adjustabe troops.
  They're capable to let their rhinos behind
  battle field if it's requisite.


>
> This doesn't mean that you cannot design a
> new chapter where assault troops like to
> wander around without rhinos
>

        And assault Space Wolves ?


>
>
>> 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.
>

        No. IG is more rigid for all things.


>
> 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.
>

        I thinks that's a good evolution.


>
> Indeed, I've never played with them on the table.
>

        It's your choise.


>
> Metal transport for IG companies is too expensive
> (the miniatures). Well, actually, all miniatures
> are too expensive now.
>

        It's not a good reason. Fluff don't
  care about it. It's pity but true.


>
> Eldar can choose to give or not give transport to
> guardian companies, but that doesn't make much of
> a difference.
>

        It does.


>
> 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
>

        I don't play only close support troops.
  And I'd never been in a case with less support
  options than I want to have.



>
> or you must buy falcon hosts wich, in the end,
> is probably the better option.
>

     And you have the choise to get it or to
  get another, more expensive but better,
  like wave serpent.

        The choise, it's important...

        You will never feel weepy about eldars
  or elves in a GW's game. They're always on the
  podium of best armies in each game. Battle, 40k,
  Epic, Blood Bowl, Mordheim, etc, etc...


>
> Beware of the danger of changing the organization
> in the cards.
>

     We're not children...


>
> Then we can also ask ourselves, why 6 stands
> per detachment and why not 5? or maybe 4?
>

        5 like space wolves ? :)


>
> Or why don't we just buy the army on a stand per
> stand basis and then organize everything as we
> see fit ?
>

     Did I ask a such thing ??? No...

     I like card system and I want to keep it.
  Stand by stand purchase is one of all things
  that I don't like very well in E40k and EA.


>
>> In Jungle or swamps, Rhino are useless.
>
> A lot of things are useless in jungle and swamps.
> Same applies for the opponent.
>

     Opponant have the choise to don't get transports...


>
> And normally there is not a lot of jungle/swamps.
> In the case of extreme terrain just buy extra
> T-hawks.
>

        But you say that you limit yoursel your
  number of thunderhawk. It's incoherent.

        If it's an game with objectives, a glade
  capture for exemple. Ennemies have lot of DCA,
  so, use thunderhawks and drop pods is a real
  suicide ! You may have part of your army in
  some thunderwaks who wait until foot troops
  neutralize DCA.


>
>>> - 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.
>

        I use them in this role with succes.


>
> 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 use second option. Lose one firing turn
  is not a real problem if i win a better position
  to fire.


>
> I prefer to lose firing turns with transports
> that cost four times less.
>

        It's your taste, not mine.


>
>>> - 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 a combat option like a joker in
  others games. Not a permanent bonus. I don't
  like that.


>
>> It's dangerous because you bring troops
>> near to breakpoint...
>
> Oh, well, if you loose the combat you will also get
> closer to breakpoint,
>

     But, with rhinos sacrifice, you hold out yourself
  your head to ennemies...

        And, I don't like to sacrifice troops like
  SM (or eldar). GI and ork, why not, but not SM.
  It's very important when I play in campaign...


>
> it's just that your 16,6 point Rhino sacrifice
> can give you an easy victory against a 50 point
> ork nob.
>

        With breakpoint, the entire support card
  is "loss" (victory points for ennemies). Both
  troops and transports. Unless you changed it
  and I did'nt read it.


>
> Anyway, if you had a transportless
> company you would have a lower break point
> and then the same would happen.
>

        I prefer that.


>
>>> 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,
>

     Which troops ? All've transports !


>
> seize/save objectives, pin other units
>

        They don't have aptitude to do that...
  All enemies units can easily kill them.


>
> screen HQs under crossfire,
>

     HQ may be in another place... If they run
  uncovered against ennemy troops, they must
  died for make the exemple. HQ don't have
  the right to be stupid.


>
>>> 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.
>


        Like me with you. We don't have the same
  approach of battle field and war.



>
>>> 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...
>

        Ah ah ah ! ;) If you only know french
  prices...

SM 2nd : 390 FF = 35 pounds
Reaver : 75 FF = 7 pounds
W40k2 : 490 FF = 45 pounds
Troops box : 90 FF = 8 pounds
Armies of Imperium : 240 FF = 22 pounds
Etc, etc...

        For W40k2 and Sm 2nd realises, you must
  have right. In my store, both game were available
  the same year (1993).


>
>> 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.
>

        I thinks that these powerfull anti-troops
  weapons are undervalue in SM2/TL...


>
>> 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.
>

        No malus. Malus are for ST over -1.

        I forget to say that this rule don't apply
  to barrage weapons and infantery weapons.


>
> A Quake cannon has no barrage but still makes a
> BOOM big enough to destroy a platoon position
> easily.
>

        But its targetting system is for greater
  targets. You can't hit a flea.


>
> 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.
>

        Yes. We can forget this idea.


>
> I want to thank you for your opinions and comments,
>

        I thank you for your answer in spite of
  my poorly english skill.



             Archi Magister Feagul

"ANHAK DRAKKHEN AGHNAHIR HURTHD !!!!!"
.
Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:25:30 UTC