>>Should I make it [Defensive Aerial Fire] optional?
>>
>-->Probably, until we got some feedback on its use. I find it difficult to
Done.
>> 3) Zutiks are soft & flabby? What's the opinion on this rule?
>
>--> Point taken. In the sense that I won't use this clan for a siege,
Good points. Let's leave it in and see how it plays.
>>> 4) I combined the Hellworm and the Land Train into one set of rules, as
>>> well as a unified list of battlecars. Reactions?
>
>True. I have read it, and still find it confusing. Since opening and closing
>battlecars is only appliable to Hellworm battlecars, I would have this lines
>in Hw entry with its battlecars, Land train and its battlecars in another
>entry while I would have rules regarding order placing, destroyed battlecars
>and tractors together for both units. This way would be less confusing. Now
>specific things from one unit are mixed with specific things from the other
>unit in the same entry.
I guess I should take a step back and ask why Land Train battlecars are so much better than Hellworm Battlecars. I'd like to make them equal and have the major difference being how they move across the battlefield. Some of the Hellworm battlecars would be useful to a Land Train and vice-versa, and I don't see Squats saying "No, we can't build a flamethrower (Dragon Battlecar) into a Hellworm Battlecar."
Also, the ability of the LT cars to move when separated from the Engine has baffled me. They can move on their own if across the board from the Engine, but not if the Engine's been destroyed? That doesn't make sense. I'd like all battlecars to depend on the Engine for movement, which gives the Secondary Engine something to do.
Third, why can the Hellworm take 15 battlecars the the Land Train's only 6? Isn't it easier to pull things over land than through it?
Finally, given that the Hellworm only moves 15 cm a turn, how many battlecars can it pull out of the ground each turn? All of them erupting out of the ground at once in one turn is just a little perposterous if it only inches forward after that. I'd like to allow, say, itself and the first 3 cars out of the ground on the first turn and 4 the second (assuming we limit the HW to 7 battlecars).
>>>- Commercial world clans cannot ally orks, Chaos and Tyranids.
>>>
>>Why not Chaos? As with the arguement about Eldar and Orks, I can conceive of
>>
>--> Still I wouldn't allow ork allies, for the reasons expressed in the
>previous message (plus generational hatred between them). The option of
Ok, no Orks or Chaos. I think Chaos Squats are from Warhammer Fantasy, and never made it to 40K. Except for Mat Birdoff's Chaos Squats army, which is worth looking at:
http://www.warmongerclub.com/articles/chaossquats1.html
>>>- Ram attacks against infantry, cavalry and walkers now ignore fixed saves.
>>>
>>Where did this come from? I don't think it's such a good idea to ignore
>>fixed saves for the Ram, unless we do it for all tunnelers.
>>
>-->I'm sorry, I wrote it too short. Previous version (8A) accounted for
>fixed saves. Beta version does not explicit it.
No, it doesn't. Squats Army Book version 5.A states: "Rams can “roll over” infantry, bikes and walkers. When moving, infantry stands in the Ram’s path are hit on 5+, bike or walker stands are hit on a 4+, and only fixed saves may be attempted."
We can make it [-4 TSM, doubled vs structurses] or something horrendus like that, but I don't agree with abolishing fixed saves.
Where is the Ram from origionly? I did a quick search of the Yahoo messages but couldn't find it.
As a separate topic, I'd like to propose the following:
If a Ram wins combat against a superheavy or larger opponent it inflicts D6 hits to random bottom locations (wheel, leg, track, etc). If the target has the Agile ability it is only hit once.
This removes the "The model has legs" "It doesn't say legs on the chart" arguement, and makes Agile a little more worthwhile. Warhounds Rule!
-Yar
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\~
|~ . o o . :;: () -0- o o .
|~ ^
/~ |
You are here. Wouldn't you rather be out there? -->
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Received on Mon Apr 18 2005 - 18:15:00 UTC