| 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) 2006/02/26 13:30:04
Subject: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
Australia
|
All units with wings should be able to use the normal chart when hitting skimmers (Auto hit if it was stationary, 4+ if it moved 6" or less in its previous turn, and 6 if it moved more than 6" in its previous turn). This would solve the problems tyranids have with skimmers, and make wings more attractive.
|
109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/02/26 15:55:40
Subject: RE: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Why stop at "winged"? By this logic any Jump infantry should be able to roll normally.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/02/26 19:24:04
Subject: RE: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I don't know about that - it seems like the jump pack simply means you're blasting off and landing. It makes a bit more sense for wings, but I imagine that Gargoyles and Winged Tyrants land to attack.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/02/26 21:11:01
Subject: RE: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
Murfreesboro, TN
|
What's to stop a jumppacker from landing on the skimmer, dealing it a few whacks, then hopping/tumbling off? Or, for that matter, FOD-ing a turbine/thruster/whathaveyou with whatever's handy as they arc over the tank?
Really, it's not a bad idea; skimmers are way too resistant as the rules stand, especially once you get into the Wave Serpent/Falcon/Hammerhead/Monolith range of vehicle. Tough armor, mitigating rules, AND you have to roll 6s to hit it?!? With as many bits of "do-it-again" upgrades out there, the "crash-on-immobilize" almost isn't a limitation anymore.
Tanks, historically, have feared infantry that get too close; why shouldn't flying tanks have to worry about flying infantry?
|
As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/03/03 01:55:36
Subject: RE: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Here's the only problem.
Eldar skimmers will pretty much always be moving more than 6" because they are fast, and they want to make all shooting attacks glancing anyways. This still makes them 6+ to hit in hth because they move more than 6" Tau vehicles can take an upgrade that lets the move more than 6 and shoot so they will generally move to get glancing hits as well.
The only thing this would really help against is the monolith.
While I think the idea is totally fair and I'd let my gaming group use it without any problems, I don't think it would do quite enough to balance the problems assault armies have against skimmers.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2006/03/03 10:47:35
Subject: RE: Winged units vs Skimmers
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I still don't really have a problem with it, but it just seems odd to me.
Infantry roll to-hit as normal against ground vehicles because that's where they're used to fighting. They've got their feet firmly planted, and they're able to use all of the techniques they use in normal hand to hand combat to nail the vehicle. Hitting a skimmer is another story, though, since they're not presenting a flat surface perpendicular to your line of attack for you to direct force at.
To hit a skimmer as normal, jump infantry would have to be as at home in the air as they are on the ground. Assault Marines land to fight, though, as do the various Tyranids. The only unit I can think of that is actually supposed to make use of wings constantly is a Swooping Hawk, and they really get very little out of this sort of rule.
I really don't see 'landing on the skimmer, dealing it a few whacks' as an easy process. For short-burst flight, as I imagine jump packs are, you're essentially aiming and letting fly. Most skimmers are also going to be pretty difficult to actually land on. You land on a Monolith and you're going to take a Gauss Arc to the face. Land on a Falcon and the thing'll just turn upside down and dump you off.
Also, what skyfyre said.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|