Richard Desnoyers wrote:
>
> [Re: Original post excerpt. - "Now I cast these seeds onto the fertile
> ground of the mailing list . . ."]
> [snipped liberally & expanded]
> Tzeench wrote:
Shouldn't that be Tzeentch?
> >I really liked the rules that you made up for the khorne daemon engines.
> >They follow very closely to the space marine stats.
Actually, they're weaker... At first I tried going for a straight
conversion, but the DEs were really nasty on paper in SM/TL and the
resulting units were just too expensive. So I had to tone them down
some
while keeping their original flavor.
> The new Khorne DE stats look great. One of the things that I really
> thought Chaos was sadly lacking in was the area of troop transportation.
> You can be sure that my Death Dealers will be using this regained ability.
From looking at the army lists, I gathered that the Transport
ability costs about 1 pt/slot, at least for the Transport(2) units. My
version of the Death Dealer was priced with that in mind. I did reduce
its carrying capacity to 4 because (1) high capacity transport units got
reduced almost across the board in E40k and (2) the main body of the DD
really isn't that big. If you want to go with Transport(5) to match the
SM/TL stats, I'd recommend adding a point or two to the cost.
The Death Dealers are expensive for APCs and slower than Rhinos;
however, having them allows you to transport your Bloodletters - Blood
for the Blood God!!! Cheesy players might also use them to give a 1st
round boost to their Fleshhounds' movement, though... hmmm....
Another idea for the Cauldron of Blood that I had was to use the
old Nurgle Stream of Corruption template (which happens to be 15cm
long);
roll to hit every unit touched, ignoring cover. But that would have
given it an effective FP of 1 and thus made the Close Support ability
worthless. I decided instead to model it after the current Hellhound
stats.
> Nurgle:
> Contagion - from what I saw posted I believe the case is closed on this one.
I still think the AF should be raised to 2 or 3 (+2 or 4 pts)
but it's not really a big deal in my mind. Their catapult attack is
so much more effective than it was in SM/TL that it's not even funny.
> Plague Tower - "Boarding Actions" - does anyone use one, does anyone care?
> [I could post the SM rules for this if anyone would like to see them.]
I thought about this but eventually decided that it wasn't
worth it. Towers move a whopping 20cm a turn, generally need to
advance into enemy territory in order to use the boarding maneuver,
and will get torn apart by AT and DR shots. Or even by straight FP.
It is no longer survivable enough to function in this capacity, IMO.
One idea I was toying with was giving a 4+ 'daemonic aura'
save to the LoB and Plague Tower, to represent the chaos-card-
sacrifice thing from SM/TL - this would likely result in a large
point-cost increase though, and would take some playtesting to get
right.
> >> Daemon Engines of Slaanesh
> [snip]
> >I am not so keen on the rules for the slaanesh daemon engines. These are
> >okay as abstract rules but I think they could also use more individual
> >stats. The rules in epic 40K do not represent the old stats for the
> >slaanesh daemon engines. The new rules don't take into account the
> >glamour of slaanesh or the fact that they also had really good armour in
> >the old rules (2+). I think the two slaanesh hell knights could be
> >simular to the epic 40K rules for the imperial knights.
The Slaanesh knights are another SM/TL unit that changed
a lot between versions. The E40k version is better at shooting
but is less durable. The problem with ramping down all the ranges
to match with the SM/TL stats is that eventually you'll have
almost no non-marine units that can shoot farther than 30cm... I
don't know, I just don't like the idea.
> I agree with Tzeench, who beat me to the punch here. I was going to post a
> message on this topic. According to the GW "fluff" that I've read about
> Daemon Knights (WD 190), they are the remnants of "Knight Households
> [which] have been corrupted by Chaos down the centuries." The E40K rules
> for Imperial Knights (CJ 21) describe them as having a "directional power
> field" which gives them a "Save" against hits. Now I will mix the old and
> the new rules together in regards to the Slaanesh DK's. I can easily
> envision their directional power fields becoming corrupted by Chaos and
> manifesting themselves as the [shifting, swirling aura called the] "Glamour
> of Slaanesh" which would work the same way, giving a DK a "Save" against hits.
The old Knight 'directional power field' was the shield that,
if an attack passed through it, the save mod of the attack was ignored.
The old Galmour just made attacks on the target at -1 to hit, and it
was not effective against template weapons (kinda eldar-ish, actually,
which is fairly appropriate for Slaanesh). A bit of a difference
there - harder to hit as opposed to more durable. Still, I suppose
that Save could cover either case.
> The Hell-Knights are renowned and feared as "Infiltrators."
Forgot about that. I'll include as an upgrade to the Knights.
> >I also think the subjugator titan is badly done. Instead of 6FP and a
> >close combat weapon, it should have a close combat weapon and 2 or 3
> >Antitank for its psi-pulse.
The Subjugator has more problems than just that - for one
thing, it's horribly overpriced.
> Both the Subjugator and Questor Titans also possess the "Glamour of
> Slaanesh" which might make them a bit more desirable to take along,
> considering their low Damage Capacity of 4 in E40K.
>
> In terms of how easily they can die in E40K, is it comparable to SM?
I think so. A -1 to hit isn't that big of a deal, their
saving throws weren't that great, and they had a CAF of +5 (hello,
bikes!).
> One last thing on these two, WD 190, page 33: "Slaanesh Scout Titans are
> very fast and agile, so unlike larger Titans they can turn as many times as
> they want while moving." I can't remember if this is in the new rules or not.
> What do you (collectively) think about this? I think this seems
> reasonable, considering their relatively small size. They're only slightly
> larger than the Hell-Knight & Hell-Scourge miniatures.
They already have an amazing movement rate, which allows
for plenty of turning.
> Finally, one last thing. No one has has said anything about the Silver
> Towers. For me this is another flavour enhancer.
> Silver Towers:
> "Magical Warding" exists between two towers within 10 cm's of each other,
> anything targeted (by an AT shot for example) through this field will
> receive a +1 armour bonus up to a maximum of 6 (or a "Save)." Once again,
> I think that I prefer the idea of a "Save".
Too much. Imagine a string of silver towers in front of the
main force of an enemy army, with backup units ready to pick up the
warding should you shoot out one or two towers.
Heck, imagine say 4 towers sitting in front of a bunch of LRs
on OW and titan(s) with 60cm DRs (to pick off any units in range of
the towers and out of range of the LRs).
> Did anyone ever use this when playing SM? Was it of any real use?
Yes. No. The warding only existed between towers in the
same detachment, and they came in detachments of 2. Opponent would
kill one tower in a pair, dropping the warding and gaining 4 (!!!)
VPs. The towers are hard to hide as well, as they are on flying
bases.
> Someone could place their H.Q. unit behind this field for added protection.
> {If I ever get a hold of a scanner I could e-mail people a *.gif or *.jpg
> of the Magical Warding Template if they wanted it.)
It's just a 10cm long rectangle.
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"All good people are asleep and dreaming"
Received on Fri May 15 1998 - 15:32:48 UTC