Re: [Epic] Deathwing Detachment

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT)

Thomas Lee Denney <seether_at_...> writes:
> >---> I think this is still too much
[alternatives suggeseted]

> Taking into account everything all of you have said, did any of you notice
> this special ability was costing each unit 5 extra points. I do agree they
> are to powerful, but better to make them to powerful and then change them
> to be less powerful then to make them not enough and increase the cost for
> nothing in return. I like the idea of just automatically passing
> leadership tests and/or ignoring the effects of blast markers. How much
> would you pay for this? 3 points extra to a regular Terminator stand, i.e:
> 22 points? The reason I wanted to make this is because I play Dark Angels
> and I don't want to have a mish-mosh of detachments from different chapters
> only because of their abilities (I kind of think that leans a bit towards
> cheese).

        I agree that the powers you give may be reasonably balanced in
price. (must be playtested to confirm) It's just that we feel that
whatever they have in WH40k doesn't translate into +2 Assault +
Rampage. I'd suggest using whatever rules were in the WD210 or so for
the Blood Angel? marines that succumb to the blood rage, or giving
them the Space Wolves ability (but calling it the Dark Angels). It's
generally safer to stick with whatever has come before. It's not like
the Space Wolves have a monopoly on being good at Assault or anything.
And it's not like you're fielding them *and* Space Wolves, or anything
else along those lines.

        If you're missing the rules, I'd be happy to dig them up and
give approximate points costs. But they're probably still at your
local shop.

> That's not to say my proposed Deathwing detachment isn't cheese
> as is, because it is. I just couldn't think of a way to incorporate the
> psychology thing into Epic40K, so i figured I'd write the rules up as I did
> and see what other idea everyone else had (btw: what does it mean in 40K
> to be immune to psychology?).

It means that when you're broken, you don't have to worry about
falling back or routing, I think. Also, if you're jumped by
morale-check-causing creatures (fear, terror), you also don't have to
worry about breaking and running. It gives absolutely no bonus versus
standard troops except for the half-strength morale check to see if
you turn and run after losing half the unit. (And since they're
marines, you shake+break, so you have to fail twice) There are also
psychic ways of forcing morale checks, and in WHFB, having the troops
around you turn and run makes you check as well. I'm sure there are
others I've missed, but those are the ones that come to mind.
        It translates the best, IMHO, as stubborn, but what's the
point of having it twice...

> I do really like the idea of automatic
> leadership check pass and ignoring blast markers, but how many points for
> this would you think is fair????????

        I don't think that being immune to psychology warrants this,
but I'd probably pay 5-10 points/stand for the ability, depending on
the size of the detachment and the survivability of individual stands.
(more for marines than IG infantry)
        Demons are immune to most psychology, IIRC, and they don't
ignore BMs.

        I think a more reasonable power would be that you pay an extra
point or two per unit, and due to the increased leadership and morale,
you pull off 1d6 BMs each turn instead of 1d6-1.

> As for the amount of units, I was just following the guidelines of the
> ravenwing (50 units= one and a half full detachments).

        But isn't the ravenwing a bike/other fast vehicle 1st company
(like, not based 5 to a stand)? If the Deathwing is a Terminator
company, they're at *best* going to be 100 men strong. And that
assumes the entire company is wearing Terminator armor.

> I do appreciate the bluntness of you guys. I try to take critisizm well
> and hope it will only make me a better gamer.

        It's usually a somewhat friendly sort of blunt. :) I just
like to discuss things, it helps keep me in some sort of practice.

Mark
Received on Thu Jul 31 1997 - 19:07:30 UTC