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) 2012/06/18 19:09:29
Subject: Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
I'm pretty new to the game perhaps that's obvious), but I was doodling down some ideas for scratchbuilding projects and I sketched up a design for an Eldar Assault Transport. I was midway into where the doors would be and armament and the like when I thought it might be cool for Eldar to have Warp Generators built into their transports. A modified Wave Serpent could rush the target, and Banshees, Scorpions, or any other unit could "jump" out to within 6" of the hull. They wouldn't have generators on them so they'd have to move as normal afterward and re-embark as normal.
It's probably overpowered, but it seemed in keeping with the fluff (super teched-up). And it doesn't seem ~too~ overpowered.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 19:19:31
Subject: Re:Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot
|
I always felt like Eldar were purposefully NOT given an Assault Transport. This is because we have arguably the best Transport in the game so we get punished by not having one. It's not like we are OP, but it is part of the character of their race. Just gotta learn to play around it IMHO.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 19:34:08
Subject: Re:Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:Just gotta learn to play around it IMHO.
I agree, it just makes another unit(s) in the codex unplayable (for a Mechdar list). I also thought it would be neat.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 19:55:44
Subject: Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Personally, I dislike the idea of an Assault-Waveserpent.
Ultimately, it'd fulfil a role similar to that of a Stormraven, but more common, cheaper and arguably tougher (smaller size). This is something I wouldn't like to see an army of (nor would your opponent I imagine) whilst it may encourage more 'suicide'-like tactics, which isn't really Eldar-esque.
In my fandex, I've added a limited-use Assault-vehicle option for Banshees (the Acrobatic Exarch Power), but I didn't include it for Scorpions as they are supposed to be less acrobatic and would then be missing out on their stealth abilities.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/18 19:56:22
Enlist as a virtual Ultramarine! Click here for my Chaos Gate (PC) thread.
"It is the great irony of the Legiones Astartes: engineered to kill to achieve a victory of peace that they can then be no part of."
- Roboute Guilliman
"As I recall, your face was tortured. Imagine that - the Master of the Wolves, his ferocity twisted into grief. And yet you still carried out your duty. You always did what was asked of you. So loyal. So tenacious. Truly you were the attack dog of the Emperor. You took no pleasure in what you did. I knew that then, and I know it now. But all things change, my brother. I'm not the same as I was, and you're... well, let us not mention where you are now."
- Magnus the Red, to a statue of Leman Russ
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 20:10:35
Subject: Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I think there is room for an assualt transport, though it would be a Craftworld version of the Venom with 5 person capacity. (it is referenced in IA11, corsairs can take a venom but it is a craftworld variation with shurikan catapults and such.....)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 20:21:57
Subject: Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
Just Dave wrote:Personally, I dislike the idea of an Assault-Waveserpent.
Ultimately, it'd fulfil a role similar to that of a Stormraven, but more common, cheaper and arguably tougher (smaller size). This is something I wouldn't like to see an army of (nor would your opponent I imagine) whilst it may encourage more 'suicide'-like tactics, which isn't really Eldar-esque.
In my fandex, I've added a limited-use Assault-vehicle option for Banshees (the Acrobatic Exarch Power), but I didn't include it for Scorpions as they are supposed to be less acrobatic and would then be missing out on their stealth abilities.
I guess that's what I'm struggling with right now: all Eldar tactics seem to be 'suicide-like'. The tanks are pretty good, but all the troops (non-vehicle units) are so squishy that they can't survive outside of a transport, and then they pretty much hide inside until said transport is destroyed. I keep coming back to the old British Army/Navy line: the British Army is a projectile to be fired by the Navy. Unfortunately, only the FD seem worthy of firing these days.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/18 22:22:55
Subject: Re:Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Oddly enough, the original assault ramp verbiage on the Land Raider was taken directly from the description of the Wave Serpent. Why it didn't get that rule at the same time Land Raiders did is lost to history.
Secondly, Eldar have a super-heavy tank in Epic that has a webway gate inside it. Eldar deploy directly from the webway through said gate instead of being inside what may amount to a coffin.
|
"'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) 2012/06/19 09:14:24
Subject: Re:Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:I always felt like Eldar were purposefully NOT given an Assault Transport. This is because we have arguably the best Transport in the game so we get punished by not having one. It's not like we are OP, but it is part of the character of their race. Just gotta learn to play around it IMHO.
After playing a while with Eldar you really learn to appreciate the value that multiple access points and fire points actually provide to an army. The thing with the Wave Serpent is that it is a really good tank, but it's one of the worst dedicated transports in the game. It's got precisely none of what makes a transport and everything that makes a main battle tank.
Let's imagine that it had it's access point to the front in the cavity between the "blades". This would mean that you can prepare your assault better by not pointing the vulnerable AV10 towards the enemy but rather the reinforced AV12. Not only that, but the unload area would be larger since less space is covered by the vehicle's hull.
No stats changed and the vehicle is already significantly better as a transport and it would be much easier to navigate around the problem of not having the Assault Ramp rule. Since this is the Proposed Rules forum the disclaimer "do not want, just speculating" is mandatory at this time.
My argument is: it's a bad transport. It doesn't do transporting well.
|
I really need to stay away from the 40K forums. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/19 13:31:31
Subject: Re:Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
Mahtamori wrote:After playing a while with Eldar you really learn to appreciate the value that multiple access points and fire points actually provide to an army. The thing with the Wave Serpent is that it is a really good tank, but it's one of the worst dedicated transports in the game. It's got precisely none of what makes a transport and everything that makes a main battle tank.
Let's imagine that it had it's access point to the front in the cavity between the "blades". This would mean that you can prepare your assault better by not pointing the vulnerable AV10 towards the enemy but rather the reinforced AV12. Not only that, but the unload area would be larger since less space is covered by the vehicle's hull.
No stats changed and the vehicle is already significantly better as a transport and it would be much easier to navigate around the problem of not having the Assault Ramp rule. Since this is the Proposed Rules forum the disclaimer "do not want, just speculating" is mandatory at this time.
My argument is: it's a bad transport. It doesn't do transporting well.
I agree, the design I was working on was trying to combine some ideas from Forgeworld with the idea of an assault ramp. That's when I hit on the idea that the unit could warp jump out instead (it seemed to go better with the fluff). As it stands, the Wave Serpent isn't a great tank - the Falcon is much better, but it's a good APC. If it had an assault ramp it would be a true transport. My idea is basically that there are warp generator jump seats in the vehicle and a unit could pop out anywhere within a 4" radius from the hull. Maybe GW could create a new aspect warrior with a new kind of transport - a combination of the Warp Spider and Howling Banshee.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/06/19 21:05:29
Subject: Eldar Assault Transport
|
 |
Wicked Warp Spider
|
If you compare a Falcon and a Wave Serpent at speeds below 6" the Falcon is killier but less durable, if you compare at speeds above 6" both are equally killy but the Serpent is more durable. The only significant difference is the ability to take Holo-fields on the Falcon and the fact that for the extra points the Falcon can survive a damage result number 3 one more time over the Serpent.
That said, I do like the Falcon as DT in Corsairs. Even if the Serpent is more durable, the Falcon provides closer to the necessary volume of fire - not to mention that it's piloted by competent pilots.
|
I really need to stay away from the 40K forums. |
|
 |
 |
|