|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Sept 6, 2002 4:44:29 GMT -5
Aye it would be cool to get a mention.  I'll try that notification thing now too. I've never used it before. |
|
|
|
Post by bedmat on Sept 24, 2002 9:20:46 GMT -5
staregy rating for eldars should be like in whk40k-4
and initiative for guardians2 and for aspects1
wraithguards wraithlords and titans 1 too
only suggestion
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Sept 25, 2002 3:20:20 GMT -5
I think Eldar should have at least the same stratergy as Marines. As far as I remember in epic40k they were higher, and in WH40k 2nd Ed they were higher. Cant remember what the difference is in current Ed. WH40K. but I think they are the same.
The Wraith Guard and Lords are in the same detatchment as Guardians, so would have the same Initiative (2).
|
|
|
|
Post by bedmat on Sept 25, 2002 4:32:40 GMT -5
yes you are right about wraithguards and wraithlords.
But in second edition of whk40k eldar army has initiative rating 4 while marines 5 or in some moments even 6:)
and rolled 2 dice and choose higher (sorry for english)
but it doesnt matter. I think that your list is very good.
but again i dont like the rule with different heavy weapon at the same point cost. but i think that in final version somebody will change this. SO for me now it is OK.
Another Question in Space marine2nd ed was wery nice eldar tank Tempest were is it? thx.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Sept 25, 2002 4:44:22 GMT -5
I have to agree that different points values are probably the way forwards for the different weapons, in the same way that the Aspects are priced differently.
The Tempest was a great tank, in the earlier versions. It changed into the Scorpion in Epic 40K. A lot of the Eldar tanks changed into something similar. There were two tanks which became the Fire Prism - was it the Prism Cannon and a four barrelled flak tank? I was out of GW mostly around 2nd Edition time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Sept 25, 2002 5:34:57 GMT -5
If you want to include tanks like the tempest etc, then I'm afraid you'll have to come up with the rules yourself, since I only started playing epic in its 40K incarnation. I never played the space marine version, or AT etc. Okay since everyone would prefer seperate pricing structures for weapons I will have a look at altering it. Looks like I'm gonna be busy.  When you talk of initiative ratings in 2nd Ed. do you mean normal 40K? If so, I'm sure Farseers were stratergy rating 5 as was the Avatar, with Eldrad at 6. I'll check my old Codex though. What I figure is that an armies stratergy rating comes from how organised they are, what military skills are present, and any intelligance they may have (including Psykers) With this in mind, I reckon the Eldar are on a par with marines. Eldar Psykers are one of the best in the game, so I figure they would help to give a high stratergy as they read the possible futures, and alter tactics to offer the best outcome. Also such is the Eldar craftworlders, life that they are an organised force. Wllingly following their Farseers orders. With Farseers being thousands of years old, I would imagine they know exactly what they are doing. If you dont agree though, post a reasoning and I will take it onboard. The more ideas I have, the better I can make the list. What do others think? |
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Sept 25, 2002 6:08:22 GMT -5
I certainly would not worry about providing support for minis which are no longer in use. If people want to create rules for them, then I am happy to accept them as a seperate document. The current Eldar list should basically be a revision of the latest Epic 40K version.
Shadow Hunter: You may be busy, but it is not really work, is it? I am also very busy. I am putting together all of the rules for my Stealer Cult. It is going well and I have all of the stats done. Next are the formations and army rules. I really like the way that this version is going.
An army strategy rating, as I see it, is similar to the way that Shadow Hunter sees it. It is a guide to how prepared the army would be for any given battle. Marines have a very high rating as they are very prepared, very well equiped and almost always find themselves as the attackers and can therefore chose their terrain, time, attacking angle and other very important things in a battle which are otherwise not included in Epic.
I would say that the Eldar have a very high rating, but not quite as high as Marines. The Eldar psykers are the best in the 40K galaxy, but they see indistinct visions and have been known to be wrong. Their knowledge is also not always passed onto the rest of the army.
In order of highest rating, I would rank the armies as:
Marines
Eldar/Tyranids
Chaos
Imperial Guards
Orks
Just my opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow_Hunter on Sept 25, 2002 8:01:26 GMT -5
I'll lower the stratergy of Eldar to four then if thats the general consensus. I'm not sure I would have 'Nids so high. They aren't the most tactically minded creatures, and attack on the basis of flooding enemy positions with numbers. They dont even particularly choose when to attack, but just do it instinctively.
|
|
|
|
Post by CyberShadow on Sept 25, 2002 9:42:23 GMT -5
True. My reason for the high placing of the Tyranids was because they often attack an unprepared planet, and so have the element of surprise on their side. They are often the attacker, and dont seem to fit as well as the defender in battles.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the strategy value is also the number of rerolls that you get.
|
|
|
|
Post by bedmat on Sept 25, 2002 16:31:06 GMT -5
In WHK40k 2nd ed tyranids have the lowest strategy rating 1.
i agree with way you look at strategy rating.
|
|
