Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 02:21:06
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Inspired by the tactics topic, we have these wonderful models and little use for them. What do you think are some effective changes? From a previous topic in the proposed rules I really like the rule that shooting attacks against Mandrakes (and The Decapitator) should use night fighter rules. Also have the nightfiend gain access to a rending/power weapon to make the upgrade more worthwhile. Decapitator really needs to get some more T or EW or gain IC so a simple multilaser cant ID him. I was also thinking of this rule to make them more mobile since they dont have a DT
Shadow Step: Mandrakes are feared by their abilities to seemingly traverse through shadows almost instantly, traveling huge distances in a heartbeat. Once per game, Mandrakes (and Decapitator) may move as if they are jump infantry
Thoughts?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/19 02:24:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 10:03:04
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
10 points per model. Problem solved.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 10:06:18
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Nasty Nob
|
Also, make kheradruakh an upgrade character and not a single man unit (letting the whole unit infiltrate like him).
Mandrakes are far to cool to be bad.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/19 10:06:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 10:29:38
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Maybe if they always moved like Jump Infantry then that would definitely improve them. Or you could add something such as this:
"The Mandrakes merge into the surrounding shadows, only to reappear a moment later across the battlefield."
Once per game, you may remove the Mandrake unit at the beginning of the Movement Phase (any player's turn), and place them anywhere on the board in terrain, so that all models are more than 1" from an enemy. In addition, any enemy units within 3" of the Mandrake's final position must take a Morale Check.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 13:37:23
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
|
The only thing they needed to change from the last edition is the one thing they left out in this edition.
Let the squad upgrade character have some sort of weapon upgrades that make the unit a bit more effective in assault. An agonizer in the unit would dramatically improve their effectiveness.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/19 13:48:26
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Jealous that Horus is Warmaster
|
Rather than have Kheradruakh being an upgrade character which has the potential to be a bit too good, make him an IC that can only be joined by a unit of Mandrakes.
I think other options would be to either make their attacks all rending as opposed to giving the Nightfiend an Agoniser etc (bit unfluffy if you ask me)
Or allow them to assault on the turn they arrive in a similar fashion to the Ymgarl Genestealers for Tyranids
I don't think merely reducing their points costs will help. With their current rules you still aren't going to take them at 10 points a pop or so when the Elites section of our codex has far more efficient and effective options available.
Boar
|
Revilers 6,000pts
Dark Eldar 4,000pts
Cadian 229 regiment 3,000pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 02:31:46
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
Greenville, NC
|
I'm new to 40k and I chose DE as my army, with the Mandrake models being one of the reasons. So are they pretty much not used at the moment? If this is the case, is it only because they can't be brought in a transport?
|
40k- Dark Eldar 1850 pts
Eldar (waiting for new codex)
WHFB- High Elves 2000 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 02:42:27
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Allidor wrote:I'm new to 40k and I chose DE as my army, with the Mandrake models being one of the reasons. So are they pretty much not used at the moment? If this is the case, is it only because they can't be brought in a transport?
There are many more problems than that
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/377086.page
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 04:44:35
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
Greenville, NC
|
I see. Thanks for the reply.
|
40k- Dark Eldar 1850 pts
Eldar (waiting for new codex)
WHFB- High Elves 2000 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 05:13:40
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
What about making their shooting attack not require a pain token? They're pretty much sitting ducks when they come in as it is.
|
2000 pts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 17:35:54
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
|
Gavo wrote:What about making their shooting attack not require a pain token? They're pretty much sitting ducks when they come in as it is.
+1
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/06/20 17:38:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 18:50:43
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Stalwart Tribune
|
Or the Fact that it the main BRB the made unit only able to pin another unit once and the fact that dont matter caus emostly ever sm army has fearless or some other way to not care.
their stat are lol fail.
I have a Bolt Pistol and chainsword i never new i could break shadows so easy with that
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 22:41:41
Subject: Re:Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I have a feeling after reading the 6th edition rumors from BoK that Mandrakes were destined for 6th edition. For three reasons:
They have infiltrate or outflank.
Stealth units may be allowed to vanish when fired upon.
The turn sequence will see the assault phase occur before the shooting phase, allowing the mandrakes to assault out of cover, kill a unit to gain the pain point and then shoot with the baleblast, pin the unit with the new pinning rules which are supposed to affect movement regardless of whether they passed leadership.
I have my fingers crossed. Those rumors alone are enough to make me add 2 box of finecast mandrakes to my next order.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/06/20 22:46:41
Subject: Making Mandrakes Meaner
|
 |
Deadly Dark Eldar Warrior
|
Currently, to fix the mandrake problem, I would give them rending, and a 4 ++ and keep them the same price.
Or, make them cost 35 points each, have them with rending, and give them a shadow field each...
|
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett
The Duke's Sky Serpents
Raids of Pleasure and Pain
Wins 3 Losses 5 Ties 3 |
|
 |
 |
|