Hi!
I know this may seem like argueing semantics, but its really not. Having
wounds is a big advantage for the tyranids. You cannot compare the bulk
and genetic engineering of a carnifex to a Necron. A Necron is sentient
but not alive, while in some circumstances that is a big boon, when it
comes to taking damage, even with high technology, a biological entity
has many advantages over a machine (call me biased, but as a physican, I
marvel at what organism can do). A necron may be a marvel, but rip out
its CPU and its over. A biological entity, especially bred for war like
the tyranids, you literally have to blast it to pieces to kill it. Its
bred to ignore all damage to achieve its goal.Blow off its head and it
still comes at you. Thus a carnifex, with only one wound is more
powerful than units in epic with one "wound". A necrons ability to
repair is superficially similar and in game terms identical, but the
rational is different, more shots into a necron, dont do much, since
that first shot may have hit that "vital" part that its self-repair wont
fix (thus the save), once damaged how does the enemy know where to aim
further shots? Even shooting it to pieces may not hit that vital "CPU"
thus the necron gets up, note the necron may not be intact, although it
is combat effective. In the case of the Carnifex you shoot at it more
since as a biological entity you can guess where it can hurt it and only
when its little fleshy non-moving pieces you'll stop.
One can argue this both ways of course, its diffcult to rationalize
"sci-fantasy", but in game terms some tyranids have wounds and all other
units in epic DO NOT, this confers tyranids their toughness. Note the
Necron's situation is not unique, bloodletters regenerate, yet as with
necron you cannot keep firing in to them, as with necrons they DO NOT
have wounds.
Peter
Eivind Borgeteien wrote:
> My thoughts below
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <primarch_at_...>
> To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:27 PM
> Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: A nid-necron camparison
>
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Although both use regeneration, only tyranids have wounds though, even
>> a carnifex who has one wound could get more shots pumped into it to
>> guarantee it doesn't come back. Necron dont have wounds, they get hit
>> and immediately regenerate or are removed.
>
>
> ---> This isnt entirely correct is it? The necrons dont immediately
> regenerate, they do so in the end phase. This leaves them turned on the side
> during the combatphase just like the nids.
>
> I can picture a battle, necrons vs nids where the carnifex is being shot,
> turned on the side trying to grow back on his feet. A few metres away is a
> necron mech doing the same. The nids cant shoot at the regenerating mech,
> but the necrons can shoot the carnifex to meatballs.
>
> This is not a question of wounds because the situation here is just the
> same, so Im looking for some answers on whether it is possible to shoot at
> units regeneratig or not.
>
> Eivind
>
> Theres no point to pump
>
>> more shots into it, because it either regenerates all damage or none,
>> unlike tyranids that can "repair" different levels of damage. The
>> necron ability is no where near as good as the tyranid bio-ability.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> --- In netepic_at_y..., <eivind.borgeteien_at_c...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> Some of the nid units have the ability to regenrate. It also says
>>
>> that the oponent can continue to shoot it even after it is down so it
>> gaines negative wounds and thus have to make more regen-rolls to
>> survive.
>>
>>> This strikes me as somewhat weird as you can not do this to necron
>>
>> units with the regen ability.
>>
>>> I think the same rule should aply to all regenerating units. Is it a
>>
>> typo somewhere here?
>>
>>> Eivind
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon May 21 2001 - 22:25:46 UTC